DC  272.5  . C6  1923 
Collins,  Ross  William,  1892 
1964  . 

Catholicism  and  the  second 
Pr^nnh  r ^  mi  hi i c .  1 84  8-1 852 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2019  with  funding  from 
Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


https://archive.org/details/catholicisrnsecon00coll_0 


STUDIES  IN  HISTORY,  ECONOMICS  AND  PUBLIC  LAW 

EDITED  BY  THE  FACULTY  OF  POLITICAL  SCIENCE 
OF  COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY 

Volume  CXII]  [Number  1 

Whole  Number  250 


CATHOLICISM  AND  THE  SECOND 
FRENCH  REPUBLIC 

1848-1852 


BY 

ROSS  WILLIAM  COLLINS,  Ph.D. 

Instructor  in  History ,  Syracuse  University 


•y 

JTem  Dork 

COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY 

SELLING  AGENTS 
New  York  :  Longmans,  Green  &  Co. 

London  :  P.  S.  King  &  Son,  Ltd. 

1923 

« 


Copyright,  1923 

BY 

The  Faculty  of  Political  Science  of 
Columbia  University,  New  York 


MY  MOTHER  AND  FATHER 


IN  GRATITUDE  AND  AFFECTION 


; 


PREFACE 


This  study  in  nineteenth-century  French  history  had  its 
origin  in  a  seminar  conducted  by  Professor  Charles  D. 
Hazen  on  the  Second  French  Republic,  which  the  author 
attended  during  the  year  1918-1919  at  Columbia  Univer¬ 
sity.  It  is  an  attempt  to  show  the  political  influence  which 
the  Catholics  wielded  during  the  years  1848-1852,  their  in¬ 
terest  in  the  social  questions  that  were  then  agitating  France, 
their  cooperation  with  the  moderates  for  the  establishment 
of  a  stable  republic,  their  fear  of  the  “  social  peril  ”  and 
reaction  against  it,  and  finally  the  attempt  of  Louis  Napoleon 
to  capture  their  support  for  the  furtherance  of  his  ambi¬ 
tions. 

I  desire  to  express  my  thanks  to  Professor  J.  Holland 
Rose  of  Cambridge  University,  who  greatly  facilitated  my 
research  work  in  England;  to  the  Librarian  at  Cambridge, 
who  graciously  accorded  me  the  use  of  the  University 
Library;  to  M.  le  Directeur  des  Archives  Nationales  for 
permission  to  consult  several  documents  in  the  French 
Archives;  and  to  the  officials  of  the  British  Museum  and 
the  Public  Record  Office,  London,  and  of  the  Bihliotheque 
Nationale ,  Paris,  for  their  helpfulness.  More  especially 
I  wish  to  acknowledge  my  indebtedness  to  Professor  Carl¬ 
ton  J.  H.  Hayes  of  Columbia  University  and  to  Professor 
William  W.  Rockwell  of  Lffiion  Theological  Seminary,  New 
York  City,  for  reading  my  manuscript,  for  revising  part  of 
the  proofs  and  for  their  criticism  and  suggestions.  I  am 
under  obligation  to  Professor  F.  J.  Foakes  Jackson  and  to 
Mr.  Walter  M.  Horton  of  Union  Theological  Seminary  for 
reading  the  proofs. 

Port  Williams,  Nova  Scotia,  Canada, 

August,  1923. 


7] 


7 


r 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 


PAGE 

Introduction 

I.  Church  and  State . n 

II.  The  Catholic  Revival .  20 

III.  The  Struggle  for  Liberty  of  Instruction . 35. 

CHAPTER  I 

The  Catholics  and  the  Revolution  of  February .  47 

CHAPTER  II 

The  Catholics  and  the  Social  Crisis  of  1848 .  71 

CHAPTER  III 

The  Reaction  against  Socialism . 106 

CHAPTER  IV 

The  Presidential  Candidacy  of  General  Cavaignac  and  the  First 
Intervention  at  Rome . 145 

CHAPTER  V 

The  Catholics  and  the  Election  of  Louis  Napoleon . 171 

CHAPTER  VI 

The  Expedition  to  Rome  in  1849 

I.  Rome  and  European  Diplomacy  in  the  Early  Part  of  1849  .  197 

II.  The  Question  of  French  Intervention  at  Rome . 207 

III.  The  Overthrow  of  the  Roman  Republic . 224 

IV.  The  Restoration  of  Pius  IX . 244 

CHAPTER  VII 

The  Falloux  Law . 266 

9]  9 


10 


CONTENTS 


[10 


PAGE 

CHAPTER  VIII 

The  Catholics  and  the  Coup  d ’  Etat . 310 

Conclusion . 331 

Bibliography . 345 

Index . 357 


INTRODUCTION 


I.  Church  and  State 

The  Old  Regime  in  France  was  characterized  by  an  inti¬ 
mate  union  between  the  state  and  the  Church,  between  the 
throne  and  the  altar.  In  the  interests  of  absolute  monarchy, 
it  was  thought  necessary  to  keep  the  Church  as  much  as 
possible  under  the  control  of  the  state;  and  for  this  pur¬ 
pose  emphasis  was  laid  upon  the  “  liberties  of  the  Gallican 
Church  ”,  which  gave  it  more  or  less  independence  of  the 
See  of  Rome.  These  liberties  were  probably  the  outcome 
of  concessions  that  the  Papacy,  from  time  to  time,  had 
made  to  the  Church  in  France.  In  1682,  during  the  quarrel 
of  Louis  XIV  with  the  Papacy,  an  attempt  was  made  de¬ 
finitely  to  formulate  them.  The  result  was  the  four  Gal¬ 
lican  Articles  of  1682.  Article  I,  the  most  important  in 
this  connection,  declared : 

Saint  Peter  and  his  successors  have  received  jurisdiction 
from  God,  only  over  spiritual  matters,  those  which  pertain 
to  salvation,  and  not  over  temporal  and  civil  affairs.  In 
consequence  kings  are,  by  God’s  decree,  subject  to  no  eccle¬ 
siastical  power  in  temporal  matters.  They  cannot  be  de¬ 
posed,  either  directly  or  indirectly,  by  the  Head  of  the 
Church;  nor  can  their  subjects  be  released  from  submission, 
obedience  and  the  oath  of  allegiance,  which  are  due  them. 

Moreover  this  doctrine  was  declared  necessary  for  the 
public  tranquility,  and  as  advantageous  for  the  Church  as 
for  the  state.  The  Papacy,  however,  never  approved  of 
these  articles,  and  in  1693  Louis  XIV  informed  Innocent 
XII  that  the  royal  decrees,  which  made  acceptance  of  these 
1 1]  n 


12  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [I2 

articles  obligatory,  would  not  be  enforced.  Nevertheless, 
the  articles  of  1682  remained  the  expression  of  GalHcanism 
which  the  majority  of  the  French  clergy  professed.  They 
were  defended  in  the  seminaries  and  in  the  schools,  and 
guarded  against  attack  by  the  vigilance  of  the  French  Parle- 
rnents,  which  never  lost  an  opportunity  to  suppress  any 
work  that  seemed  hostile  to  them.1  From  the  papal  point 
of  view  the  so-called  Gallican  liberties  were  nothing  but  a 
badge  of  servitude  imposed  upon  the  French  bishops  by 
absolute  monarchy.2  From  the  point  of  view  of  the  mon¬ 
archy,  they  were  another  prop  to  absolutism. 

But  there  was  another  phase  of  the  alliance  of  throne  and 
altar.  The  clergy  constituted  the  first  order  of  the  state.3 
Catholicism  was  maintained  as  the  sole  religion  of  France. 
The  secular  arm  was  employed  to  execute  the  injunctions 
of  the  Church,  to  enforce  the  observance  of  Sunday  and  of 
the  innumerable  feast  days,  and  to  repress  heresy.  Any¬ 
thing  that  appeared  to  threaten  the  unity  of  religion  was 
as  ruthlessly  suppressed  by  the  government  as  any  attempt 
to  challenge  the  royal  power  and  prerogative.4 

Because  of  its  association  with  the  monarchy,  because 
of  the  privileges  which  it  possessed  under  the  old  regime, 
and  because  of  the  anti-Christian  spirit  of  much  of  the 
revolutionary  philosophy,  the  Church  suffered  greatly  at 
the  hands  of.  the  Revolution.  The  clergy  were  deprived 
of  their  revenues  by  the  state  expropriation  of  ecclesiastical 
property,  and  the  relations  of  the  Church  with  the  state 
were  regulated  by  the  Civil  Constitution  of  the  Clergy. 

1  Catholic  Encyclopedia,  art.  Gallicanism. 

2  De  Maistre,  J.,  De  I’cglisc  gallicanc  dans  son  rapport  avec  le  souverain 
pontife  (Lyon,  1838),  p.  341. 

3  Champion,  E.,  La  separation  de  Veglise  et  de  Vetat  en  iyg4  (Paris, 
1903),  P-  4- 

4  Ibid.,  pp.  4-5. 


INTRODUCTION 


13 


13] 

Many,  therefore,  preferred  exile  or  deposition  rather  than: 
accept  the  new  order  of  things.  The  suspicion  that  the 
non-jurors,  those  who  refused  to  take  the  oath  of  the 
Civil  Constitution,  were  intriguing  against  the  Revolution 
was  soon  directed  against  the  clergy  indiscriminately;  and 
jurors  [the  Constitutional  priests]  and  non-jurors  alike 
were  denounced  as  accomplices  of  kings  and  emigres. 
Patriotism  therefore  in  many  cases,  especially  when  the 
armies  of  the  Republic  were  hard  pressed  by  the  armies 
of  royalty,  manifested  itself  in  warfare  against  the  Church. 
The  worship  of  Reason  and  the  Patrie,  the  cults  of  the 
Supreme  Being  and  Theophilanthropy,  and  finally  the  separa¬ 
tion  of  Church  and  State,  were  aspects  of  this  warfare. 
When  republicans  did  not  deliberately  attempt  to  destroy 
Catholicism,  they  hoped  that,  under  the  light  of  reason  and 
with  the  waning  of  superstition,  it  would  gradually  dis¬ 
appear. 

Nevertheless  the  Revolution  failed  to  destroy  the 
Church.  The  act  of  separation  was  regarded  as  a  victory 
for  Catholicism  and  as  a  recognition  of  the  failure  of  the 
Republic  to  annihilate  it.  Although  favorable  to  the  state, 
inasmuch  as  it  produced  a  free  and  secular  state  with  con¬ 
trol  of  education,  separation  was  not  unfavorable  to  the 
Church.  The  Church,  it  is  true,  was  split  up  into  various 
factions,  who  quarreled  amongst  themselves  and  prevented 
it  from  presenting  a  united  front  to  the  Republic.  But 
notwithstanding  there  was,  at  the  close  of  the  Directory  in 
17 99,  “  an  extraordinary  development  of  religious  life  in 
France.” 1 

Napoleon  refused  to  adhere  to  the  religious  policy, 
favorable  as  it  was  to  the  state,  which  he  had  inherited 
from  the  Directory.  Hardly  had  he  been  seated  in  power 

1  Aulard,  A.,  The  French  Revolution  (New  York,  1910),  vol.  iv,  p.  202. 


I4  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [I4 

before  he  negotiated  with  the  papacy  a  Concordat,  which, 
says  Aulard,  “  established,  and  even  aggravated,  the  old 
confusion  between  Church  and  state/’  No  pious  motives, 
no  desire  to  favor  the  Roman  Catholic  religion — for  he 
was  probably  devoid  of  religious  conviction — but  personal 
ambition  actuated  the  First  Consul.  His  political  astute¬ 
ness  told  him  that  the  Catholic  Church,  if  properly  reorgan¬ 
ized,  if  sufficiently  subordinated  to  the  ruling  authority, 
could  be  made  a  great  bulwark  to  his  power.  Nominally 
the  Concordat  did  not  abolish  the  principle  of  the  secular 
state,  as  Catholicism  was  not  proclaimed  a  state  religion, 
but  only  the  religion  “  professed  by  the  great  majority  of 
the  people  of  France.”  Nominations  to  episcopal  sees  were 
to  be  made  by  the  First  Consul  after  which  the  Pope  would 
confer  canonical  institution.  The  cures  of  the  cantons  were 
to  be  appointed  by  the  bishop,  but  their  choice  might  fall 
only  on  persons  approved  by  the  government.  The  chief 
towns  of  the  cantons  alone  were  to  possess  priests  having 
the  rank  of  cure.  The  spiritual  needs  of  all  smaller  places 
were  to  be  ministered  to  by  vicars  [pretres  desservants]  who 
were  subject  to  appointment  and  dismissal  at  the  hands  of 
the  bishop.  Both  bishops  and  cures  swore  to  maintain 
obedience  and  fidelity  to  the  government;  to  hold  no  inter¬ 
course  with,  or  support,  any  league,  at  home  or  abroad, 
which  might  be  hostile  to  the  public  tranquility;  and  to 
inform  the  government  of  any  movement  inimical  to  the 
interests  of  the  state.  No  papal  bull,  brief,  mandate  or 
decree  might  be  received,  printed  or  put  into  execution,  no 
council  or  synod,  national  or  diocesan,  might  be  held,  with¬ 
out  receiving  the  authorization  and  permission  of  the  gov¬ 
ernment.  In  return  the  state  undertook  to  assure  the 

_  S 

bishops  and  cures  a  “  suitable  stipend.”  1 

1  For  the  text  of  this  Concordat  see  Raccolta  di  concordati  sic 
materie  ecclesiastiche  tra  la  Santa  Sede  e  le  antoritd  civili,  edited  by 
Mercati  (Roma,  1919),  pp.  561-565. 


INTRODUCTION 


15 


15] 

A  system  that  made  the  Church  but  a  “  sacred  gendar¬ 
merie  ”  for  the  realization  of  political  ambition,  however 
much  satisfaction  it  may  have  caused  at  the  outset,  could 
not  long  sustain  enthusiasm.  Subjection  grew  increasingly 
irksome  to  the  clergy;  and  the  Emperor’s  treatment  of  the 
Pope  touched  the  Catholic  conscience.  The  instrument 
which  Napoleon  had  created  to  enable  him  to  govern  men’s 
consciences  through  the  Pope  helped  to  compass  his  ruin. 
His  fall  was  therefore  hailed  with  relief  and  the  Restora¬ 
tion  welcomed  as  a  deliverance. 

If  Napoleon  sought  to  make  the  Church  serve  the  state, 
the  monarchs  of  the  Restoration  endeavored  to  make  the 
state  serve  the  Church.  The  government,  said  Odilon 
Barrot,  “  seemed  to  wish  to  reign  for  and  by  the  Catholic 
Church.”  The  ultra-Catholic  party,  composed  largely  of 
emigres,  immediately  raised  its  head  and  clamorously  made 
its  desires  known.  It  demanded  the  abolition  of  the  Con¬ 
cordat,  admission  of  the  religious  orders,  the  destruction 
of  the  University,  full  liberty  for  the  clergy  to  open  schools, 
removal  of  the  divorce  law  from  the  Napoleonic  code,  re¬ 
storation  to  the  Church  of  the  confiscated  ecclesiastical  prop¬ 
erty  which  the  state  still  possessed,  and  compensation  for 
what  had  been  sold — in  short  a  return  as  nearly  as  possible 
to  prerevolutionary  conditions.  A  new  concordat  was 
actually  negotiated  with  the  Pope  “  in  order  that,”  said  the 
preamble,  “  religion  might  recover  ....  its  former  pres¬ 
tige.”  1  It  proposed  to  revoke  the  Concordat  of  1801  and 
restore  the  dioceses  suppressed  by  Napoleon.  His  Most 
Christian  Majesty  was  to  cooperate  with  the  Holy  Father 
and  to  use  every  means  in  his  power  to  remove  the  ob¬ 
stacles  that  hindered  the  welfare  of  the  Church  and  pre¬ 
vented  the  execution  of  her  laws.  The  Chamber  of  De¬ 
puties,  however,  seeing  in  the  vague  phrases  of  the  new 

1  Raccolta  di  concordati,  pp.  597-601. 


j6  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [16 

concordat  the  yoke  of  the  papacy,  refused  to  sanction  it, 
and  Louis  XVIII  was  obliged  to  inform  Pius  VII  that  the 
French  government  could  not  sustain  it  without  shaking 
the  throne.  The  most  that  could  be  obtained  was  an  aug¬ 
mentation  of  the  number  of  episcopal  sees.  Furthermore, 
divorce  was  removed  from  the  civil  code.  The  influx  of 
religious  congregations  was  encouraged,  their  right  to  re¬ 
ceive  legacies  was  recognized,  and  their  control  of  schools 
winked  at. 

Louis  XVIII,  who  “  did  not  have  for  the  Revolution 
and  its  principles  the  innate  horror  that  Charles  X  had  re¬ 
tained  ”,  possessed  some  political  discernment,  and  per¬ 
ceived  that  it  was  impossible  to  return  to  the  state  of  affairs 
that  obtained  in  1789.  But  even  this  little  wisdom  Charles 
X,  “  the  idol  and  the  hope  of  the  reactionary  party  ”,1 
lacked.  By  devotion  to  the  Church  he  thought  to  atone 
for  the  sins  of  his  youth.  He  declared  that  he  wished 
to  heal  the  last  wounds  left  by  the  Revolution,  and  an¬ 
nounced  his  intention  of  renewing,  by  the  ancient  ceremony 
of  coronation,  the  intimate  alliance  of  the  throne  with  re¬ 
ligion.  A  law  against  sacrilege  was  passed,  processions  of 
the  Holy  Sacrament,  for  which  inhabitants  were  ordered  to 
drape  their  houses,  were  once  more  authorized,  and  France 
was  treated  to  the  spectacle  of  a  king  anointed  in  truly 
mediaeval  fashion  at  Rheims  and  piously  walking  in  re¬ 
ligious  procession  through  the  streets  of  Paris. 

The  Catholic  clergy  [said  Odilon  Barrot]  were  impelled  by  a 
heedless  religious  zeal  in  the  same  direction  as  the  govern¬ 
ment.  Happy  to  be  able  to  shake  off  those  legal  restrictions 
that  confined  them  to  the  sanctuary,  they  emerged  triumphant. 
Their  processions,  so  long  restricted  to  the  churches,  conspicu¬ 
ously  manifested  themselves  in  public.  It  seemed  as  though 
they  had  recovered  possession  of  the  France  of  a  former  day. 

1  Barrot,  Odilon,  Memo  ires,  vol.  i,  p.  65. 


INTRODUCTION 


1 7 


1 7] 

But  this  attempt  to  foist  a  clerical  regime  upon  the  France 
of  the  Revolution  ill  served  the  interests  of  religion  and 
of  the  Church.  It  caused  a  resurrection  of  the  Voltairian^ 
spirit;  it  flooded  the  country  with  cheap  editions  of  the 
sceptical  literature  of  the  eighteenth  century;  it  aroused 
“  systematic  hostility  and  sarcasm,  not  only  against  the 
ministers  of  religion,  hut  against  religion  itself  ” ;  and 
caused  the  liberal  party  to  become  irreligious  on  political 
grounds,  if  for  no  other  reason.  “  Impiety  ”,  said  de 
Tocqueville,  “  was  a  form  of  opposition.”  The  fatuity  of 
Charles  X  and  of  the  clerical  party  that  controlled  the  gov¬ 
ernment  blinded  them  to  the  current  of  feeling  that  was 
growing  against  such  an  administration  and  sealing  their 
doom.  In  July,  1830,  Paris  rose  in  revolution  against  a 
monarchy  with  which  it  identified  the  Church.  “  Catholic¬ 
ism  ”,  says  a  writer  of  clerical  sympathy,  “  established  as  a 
state  religion,  was  one  of  the  aspects  of  this  regime,  and 
the  most  detested  of  all.”  1 

Not  only  did  the  Restoration  so  favor  tire  Church  that  de 
Tocqueville  could  claim  with  a  measure  of  truth  that  it 
ruined  itself  for  the  sake  of  the  Church,2  but  it  dragged 
the  Church  down  in  its  own  debacle.  Following  the  Re¬ 
volution  of  July,  Catholicism  met  with  a  hostility  second 
only  to  that  experienced  during  the  Revolution  of  1789. 
Crosses  were  tom  down  by  the  same  hands  that  destroyed 
the  fleur-de-lis.  The  residence  of  the  Archdishop  of  Paris 
and  the  Church  of  Saint-Germain  I’Auxerrois  were  sacked 
as  well  as  the  Tuileries.  Bishops  were  driven  from  their 
dioceses,  and  the  Archbishop  of  Paris  was  obliged  to  con¬ 
ceal  himself  for  several  months.  Catholic  seminaries  were 
closed.  Priests  were  unable  to  appear  on  the  street  clad 
in  clerical  garb  without  being  insulted  and  ill-treated;  while 

1  Foisset,  M.,  Vie  du  R.  P.  Lacordaire ,  2nd  ed.  (Paris,  1873),  vol.  i, 
P-  23. 

2  Cf.  infra,  chap,  i,  p.  70. 


jS  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [18 

religion  was  caricatured  in  the  press  and  an  the  theatre. 
The  presence  of  a  young  man  in  a  Church,  it  was  said, 
provoked  as  much  surprise  as  the  visit  of  a  Christian 
traveler  to  an  oriental  mosque  ;  and  Casimir-Perier  informed 
the  priests  that  the  moment  had  come  when  they  would  have 
only  a  small  number  of  devotees.1 

In  spite  of  the  hostility  of  the  Revolution  of  July  to¬ 
wards  the  Church,  the  new  government,  if  we  except  a  few 
repressive  measures  at  the  outset,  was  disposed  to  treat  it 
with  tolerance.  Personally  Louis-Philippe  was  an  eigh¬ 
teenth-century  Voltairian  who  regarded  ecclesiastical  ques¬ 
tions  with  contempt,  and  who  disliked  to  entangle  himself 
in  religious  matters.  For  political  reasons  he  was  desirous 
of  remaining  at  peace  with  the  clergy.  The  charter  of 
1830,  while  refusing  to  recognize  Catholicism  as  a  state  re¬ 
ligion,  nevertheless  acknowledged  that  it  was  the  religion 
of  the  majority  of  the  French  people.  Furthermore  it 
assured  an  equal  protection  to  all  forms  of  worship  and 
promised  their  ministers  a  stipend  from  the  public  treasury. 
The  Concordat  was  therefore  maintained. 

The  Revolution  of  1830  imparted  a  lesson  to  the  Cath¬ 
olics  which  they  had  failed  to  learn  from  that  of  1789, 
namely,  that  their  best  interests  lay  apart  from  any  dynastic 
alliance. 

In  the  face  of  this  hostility  [said  Melun  referring  to  the  situ¬ 
ation  after  July  30,  1830]  the  idea  came  to  some  young  and 
ardent  Catholics  to  reconcile  the  times  and  the  country  with 
the  Church.  Accepting  public  life  and  discussion  as  the  means, 
they  undertook  to  win  over  the  minds  of  men  by  ending  the 
confusion  between  the  throne  and  the  altar,  between  that  which 
passes  and  that  which  abides,  to  show  that  Catholicism  by 
virtue  of  its  universality  did  not  identify  itself  with  or  repel 

1  Thureau-iDangin,  P.,  L’Eglise  et  I'etat  sous  la  monarchie  de  Juillet 
(Paris,  1880),  pp.  3-5. 


INTRODUCTION 


19 


19] 

any  form  of  government,  and  that  far  from  being  hostile  to 
the  liberties  so  dear  to  France,  it  was  their  source,  their  auxi¬ 
liary  which  assisted  them  to  triumph.1 

The  leader  in  this  movement  was  the  Abbe  Lamennais. 
He  informed  the  Catholics  that  they  did  wrong  to  seek  the 
interests  of  Catholicism  “  in  the  dust  of  a  shattered  throne  ”. 
In  1830  he  collaborated  in  the  foundation  of  the  paper, 
U Avenir,  which  soon  became  identified  with  his  own  opin¬ 
ions,  one  of  the  tenets  of  which  was  the  separation  of 
throne  and  altar.  Why  does  the  priest  in  many  places  re¬ 
main  alone  in  a  deserted  temple?  asked  Lamennais.  Why 
are  his  instructions  no  longer  heeded,  his  precepts  sterile? 
Because  the  priest  has  become  the  “  gendarme  of  royalty.” 
Lamennais  indeed  went  the  full  length  of  his  doctrines  and 
demanded  absolute  separation  between  the  Church  and  the 
state,  for  which  the  Avenir  received  the  condemnation  of 
the  papacy.  “  The  morsel  of  bread  that  is  thrown  to  the 
clergy  ”,  he  declared,  “  is  only  the  seal  of  their  oppression.” 
Although  his  disciples  broke  with  him  on  this  doctrine,  the 
liberal  Catholics  continued  to  Work  for  the  disentanglement 
of  Catholicism  from  its  alliance  with  the  old  monarchy. 

As  to  political  opinions  [wrote  Ozanam  in  1834]  ...  I  desire 
the  annihilation  of  the  political  spirit  for  the  benefit  of  the 
social  spirit.  Beyond  a  doubt  I  have  for  the  old  royalism  all 
the  respect  that  one  owes  a  glorious  invalid;  but  I  should  not 
lean  upon  it,  because  with  its  wooden  leg  it  cannot  march  in 
step  with  the  new  generation. 

“  For  us  French,”  he  declared  in  1838,  “  a  great  thing  has 
been  achieved:  the  separation  of  two  great  words  which 
seemed  inseparable,  the  throne  and  the  altar.”  2  This  sever- 

1  Melun,  A.  de,  Memoires  (Paris,  1891),  vol.  i,  pp.  146-147. 

2  Lettres,  vol.  i,  p.  254. 


20  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [20 

ance  of  Catholicism  from  the  dynastic  associations  of  the 
past,  from  u  a'll  the  bonds  of  the  polity  that  had  just  fal¬ 
len  ”,  was  one  factor  in  restoring  the  influence  of  Catholic¬ 
ism  to  French  society  and  one  of  the  antecedents  of  the 
popularity  that  greeted  it  during  the  Revolution  of  1.848. 
As  early  as  1835  de  Tocqueville  could  write: 

Irreligious  publications  have  become  extremely  rare — I  do 
not  know  of  even  a  single  one.  Religion  and  the  priests  have 
entirely  disappeared  from  caricature.  It  is  very  rare  in  public 
places  to  hear  conversation  that  is  hostile  either  to  the  clergy 
or  to  their  doctrines.  This  does  not  mean  that  all  those  who 
keep  silent  have  conceived  a  great  love  for  religion;  but  it  is 
evident  that  they  no  longer  bear  it  any  malice.1 

II.  The  Catholic  Revival 

The  Revolution  of  1789  had  been  nourished  on  the  deistic 
philosophy  of  the  eighteenth  century,  which,  during  the 
Revolution  *  had  manifested  itself  in  anti-Christian  propa¬ 
ganda  and  demonstration.  Nevertheless  there  was  a  germ 
within  that  philosophy  that  was  making  for  the  revival  of 
Christianity  in  the  nineteenth  century.  This  was  the  teach¬ 
ing  of  Rousseau  as  embodied  in  the  “  Creed  of  a  Savoyard 
Vicar  ”.  While  itself  a  product  of  eighteenth-century 
deism,  it  was  at  the  same  time  a  reaction  against  that 
philosophy;  while  capable  of  a  sceptical  conclusion,  it  also 
tended  towards  a  reawakening  of  faith.  Philosophy,  the 
Savoyard  Vicar  taught,  leads  nowhere,  whereas  religion 
leads  to  the  love  of  one’s  neighbor.  “  There  is  no  good 
which  philosophy  can  bring  about,  which  is  not  equally  well 
secured  by  religion,  while  religion  bestows  much  that 
philosophy  cannot  give.”  Religion  was  not  a  matter  of  the 
reason,  but  of  the  heart;  not  a  thing  to  be  gleaned  from 


1  Cited  from  Thureau-Dangin,  op.  cit.,  p.  14. 


INTRODUCTION 


21 


21] 

books,  but  from  life.  Rousseau  exalted  what  appealed  to 
the  heart  rather  than  to  the  intellect ;  to  the  emotions,  rather 
than  to  the  reason;  and  in  this  he  was  one  of  the  precur¬ 
sors  of  the  Romantic  Movement.  He  exalted  Christ,  the 
central  figure  of  Christianity,  whereas  the  arrogance  of  the 
philosophers  had  depreciated  Him. 

I  own  .  .  .  [confessed  the  Savoyard  Vicar]  that  the  holiness 
of  the  Gospel  speaks  to  my  heart.  .  .  .  Consider  the  books  of 
the  philosophers  with  all  their  outward  show;  how  petty  they 
are  in  comparison  !  Can  a  book  at  once  so  grand  and  so  simple 
be  the  work  of  men?  Is  it  possible  that  He  Whose  history  is 
contained  in  this  book  is  no  more  than  man?  Is  the  tone  of 
this  book  the  tone  of  the  enthusiast  or  of  the  ambitious  sec¬ 
tary?  What  gentleness  and  purity  in  His  actions,  what  a 
touching  grace  in  His  teaching,  how  lofty  are  His  sayings, 
how  profoundly  wise  are  His  sermons,  how  ready,  how  dis¬ 
criminating,  and  how  just  are  His  answers!  1 

Because  he  conceived  dogmas  as  symbols  rather  than 
truths  in  themselves,  the  Savoyard  Vicar  could  accept  Cath¬ 
olicism  and  perform  its  rites  conscientiously. 

I  serve  God  in  the  simplicity  of  my  heart  [he  said]  ;  I  only 
seek  to  know  what  affects  my  conduct.  As  to  those  dogmas 
which  have  no  effect  upon  action  or  morality,  dogmas  about 
which  so  many  men  torment  themselves,  I  give  no  heed  to 
them.  I  regard  all  individual  religions  as  so  many  wholesome 
institutions  which  prescribe  a  uniform  method  by  which  each 
country  may  do  honor  to  God  in  public  worship  ;  institutions 
each  of  which  may  have  its  reason  in  the  country,  the  govern¬ 
ment,  the  genius  of  a  people,  or  in  the  local  causes  which  make 
one  preferable  to  another  in  a  given  time  or  place.  I  think 
them  all  good  alike,  when  God  is  served  in  a  fitting  manner. 
True  worship  is  of  the  heart.  God  rejects  no  homage,  how¬ 
ever  offered,  provided  it  is  sincere.  Called  to  the  service  of 


1  Rousseau,  Emile,  Everyman’s  Library,  p.  271. 


22  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [22 

the  Church  in  my  own  religion,  I  fulfil  as  scrupulously  as  I 
can  all  the  duties  prescribed  to  me,  and  my  conscience  would 
reproach  me  if  I  were  knowingly  wanting  with  regard  to  any 
point.  ...  I  used  to  say  Mass  with  the  levity  that  comes 
from  long  experience  even  of  the  most  serious  matters  when 
they  are  too  familiar  to  us;  with  my  new  principles  I  now 
celebrate  it  with  more  reverence;  I  dwell  upon  the  majesty  of 
the  Supreme  Being,  his  presence,  the  insufficiency  of  the  human 
mind,  which  so  little  realizes  what  concerns  its  Creator. 
When  I  consider  how  I  present  before  Him  the  prayers  of 
all  the  people  in  a  form  laid  down  for  me,  I  carry  out  the  whole 
ritual  exactly;  I  give  heed  to  what  I  say,  I  am  careful  not 
to  omit  the  least  word,  the  least  ceremony;  when  the  moment 
of  the  consecration  approaches,  I  collect  my  powers,  that  I 
may  do  all  things  as  required  by  the  Church  and  by  the  great¬ 
ness  of  this  sacrament;  I  strive  to  annihilate  my  own  reason 
before  the  supreme  mind;  I  say  to  myself,  who  art  thou  to 
measure  infinite  power?  I  reverently  pronounce  the  sacra¬ 
mental  words,  and  I  give  to  their  effect  all  the  faith  I  can  be¬ 
stow.  Whatever  may  be  this  mystery  which  passes  under¬ 
standing,  I  am  not  afraid  that  at  the  day  of  judgment  I  shall 
be  punished  for  having  profaned  it  in  my  heart.1 

.  .  .  Return  to  your  own  country  [counsels  the  Vicar]  go 
back  to  the  religion  of  your  fathers,  and  follow  it  in  sincerity 
of  heart,  and  never  forsake  it:  it  is  very  simple  and  very  holy; 
I  think  there  is  no  other  religion  upon  earth  whose  morality 
is  purer,  no  other  more  satisfying  to  the  reason.2 

My  son,  keep  your  soul  in  such  a  state  that  you  always  desire 
that  there  should  be  a  God  and  you  will  never  doubt  it.  More¬ 
over,  whatever  decision  you  come  to,  remember  that  the  real 
duties  of  religion  are  independent  of  human  institutions ;  that 
a  righteous  heart  is  the  true  temple  of  the  Godhead ;  that  in 
every  land,  in  every  sect,  to  love  God  above  all  things  and  to 
love  our  neighbor  as  ourself  is  the  whole  law ;  remember  there 

1  Rousseau,  op.  cit.,  pp.  272-273. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  275. 


INTRODUCTION 


23 


23] 

is  no  religion  which  absolves  us  from  our  moral  duties;  that 
these  alone  are  really  essential,  that  the  service  of  the  heart 
is  the  first  of  these  duties,  and  that  without  faith  there  is  no 
such  thing  as  true  virtue.1 

Such  teachings  set  in  the  midst  of  a  revolutionary  philos¬ 
ophy  almost  inevitably  inaugurated  a  reaction  towards 
Catholicism. 

During  the  latter  part  of  the  eighteenth  and  the  beginning 
of  the  nineteenth  century  the  creed  of  a  Savoyard  Vicar 
exercised  a  profound  influence.2  For  all  those  who  on  the 
morrow  of  the  Revolution  found  the  rationalism  of  the 
eighteenth  century  unsatisfying,  and  they  were  many,  it 
was  a  “  new  Orpheus  ”  to  dispel  their  discontent.3  Some 
of  the  followers  of  Jean-Jacques,  content  to  maintain  a 
respect  for  Jesus  'Christ  without  faith,  doubtless  did  not' 
pass  beyond  deism.  But  for  many  more  his  teachings  be¬ 
came  a  step  towards  Catholicism.  Rousseau  was  one  of 
the  forces  working  towards  a  religious  restoration  in 
France,  which  could  not  help  but  be  advantageous  to 
Catholicism.'4  His  influence  in  this  direction,  however,  be¬ 
came  all  the  greater  because  the  Creed  of  a  Savoyard  Vicar 
inspired  Chateaubriand’s  Genius  of  Christianity ,  a  work  of 
which  the  author  could  boast  that  it  had  imparted  its 
“  flavor  ”  to  “  literature  ”.5 

During  at  least  some  twenty  years  [says  a  recent  writer] 
almost  all  those  whom  the  Savoyard  Vicar  had  brought  back 
to  God  reentered  the  Churches  behind  Chateaubriand.  For 

1  Rousseau,  op.  cit.,  pp.  275-276. 

s  Cf.  Masson,  P.  M.,  Rousseau  et  la  restauration  religieuse,  2nd  ed. 
(Paris,  1916),  p.  272. 

3  Ibid. 

4  Ibid.,  pp.  357-358. 

5  Preface  to  edition  of  1828.  The  work  first  appeared  in  1802. 


24  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [24 

this  generation  Rousseau  remains  perhaps  one  of  the  great 
spiritual  forces;  but  in  so  far  as  this  force  is  constructive, 
one  is  no  longer  able  to  distinguish  its  influence  from  that 
of  Chateaubriand.  Temporarily  the  Profession  de  foi  is  in¬ 
corporated  in  the  Genie  du  christianisme ,  and  disappears  in  the 
latter’s  radiance.1 

For  Chateaubriand  as  for  Rousseau,  Christian  “  doctrine 
does  not  have  its  seat  in  the  head,  but  in  the  heart ;  it  does 
not  teach  to  argue,  but  to  live  well.”  3  Over  against  reason, 
“  which  has  never  dried  a  tear  ”,  he  places  the  countless 
benefits  which  Christianity  has  conferred  upon  the  human 
race.  “  Who  would  not  be  convinced  by  the  beauty  and 
the  grandeur  of  Christianity?  ”  he  asks.  “  Who  is  not  over¬ 
whelmed  ”  by  the  “  imposing  array  of  its  benefits  ” 3 
The  truth  of  Christianity  is  thus  not  demonstrated  by  proof 
or  by  argument  so  much  as  by  the  influence  that  it  has 
exerted  in  creating  “  a  grander  humanity  amongst  men  ” ; 
and  a  new  interest  was  consequently  awakened  in  the  his¬ 
tory  of  Christianity.  “  The  Christian  religion  makes  a 
dogma  of  moral  equality,  the  only  kind  that  one  can  preach 
without  overturning  the  world  ” ;  “  Christianity  is  chiefly 
admirable  for  having  converted  the  physical  man  into  the 
moral  man  ” ;  “  The  counsels  of  the  Gospel  form  the  true 
philosophy,  and  its  precepts  the  true  citizen  ” :  these  are 
some  of  the  deductions  that  he  made  from  his  survey  of 
history.4  The  question  with  Chateaubriand  ‘is  not  so  much, 
Is  Christianity  true?  but,  Is  it  beautiful?  It  is  beneficial? 

This  way  of  looking  at  Christianity  made  its  appeal  to 
the  age;  it  helped  to  undermine  the  scepticism  of  the  eight¬ 
eenth-century  philosophy;  it  created  an  atmosphere  that 

1  Masson,  op.  cit.,  p.  350. 

2  Chateaubriand,  F.  A.,  Le  genie  du  christianisme  (Paris,  1863),  p.  22. 

8  Ibid.,  p.  625. 

*Ibid.,  pp.  619-620. 


INTRODUCTION 


25 


was  sympathetic  with  Christianity;  and  it  was  one  of  the 
factors  in  the  revival  of  Catholicism. 

What  Chateaubriand  did  for  the  revival  of  Catholicism 
by  building  upon  one  phase  of  the  thought  of  Rousseau, 
Count  Joseph  de  Maistre  effected  by  attacking  eighteenth- 
century  philosophy.  Over  against  the  natural  religion  of 
the  deists,  with  their  absentee  God,  de  Maistre  placed  the 
traditional  conception  of  an  ever-ruling  providence.  Be¬ 
cause  he  perceived  in  Bacon,  whom  he  called  the  “  father 
of  all  errors  ”,  the  progenitor  of  eighteenth-century  philo¬ 
sophy,  he  took  pains  to  point  out  the  flaws  in  his  thought.1 
His  penetrating  insight  enabled  him  to  exhibit  the  fallacies 
of  the  philosopke,  and  helped  him  to  discredit  them. 
Voltaire  was  his  particular  bete  noir.  He  could  perceive 
no  merit  an  a  writer  who  did  nothing  but  “  blaspheme  ”  or 
“insult”.  “The  laugh  that  he  arouses  is  not  legitimate; 
it  is  a  grimace.”  To  de  Maistre,  even  his  appearance  had 
somethng  satanic  about  it. 


That  frightful  mouth,  stretching  from  ear  to  ear,  and  those 
lips  compressed  with  a  cruel  malice,  ready,  like  a  spring,  to 
open  themselves  for  the  purpose  of  hurling  blasphemy  or  sar¬ 
casm.  Do  not  speak  to  me  of  that  man  [said  de  Maistre],  I 
cannot  abide  the  thought  of  him.  Oh  !  What  evil  has  he  done 
us !  Like  that  insect,  the  scourge  of  the  gardens,  which  di¬ 
rects  its  fangs  only  at  the  root  of  the  most  precious  plants, 
Voltaire,  with  his  venom,  does  not  cease  to  sting  the  two  roots 
of  society,  the  women  and  the  youth.  He  inoculates  them 
with  his  poison,  which  is  thus  transmitted  from  one  gener¬ 
ation  to  another.2 


But  the  “great  crime  of  Voltaire”  was  the  “abuse  of 
talent  and  the  deliberate  prostitution  of  a  genius  created  to 

1  Examen  de  la  philosophic  de  Bacon  (Lyon,  1836),  vol.  ii,  pp.  25,  267. 

2  Les  soirees  de  Saint-P  etersbourg ,  ou  entretiens  sur  le  gouvernement 
temporel  de  la  providence,  4th  ed.  (Lyon,  1842),  vol.  i,  pp.  241-242. 


26  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [26 

praise  God  and  Virtue.”  1  “  He  delivered  over  his  imagina¬ 

tion  to  the  raptures  of  hell,  which  lent  him  all  its  power  to 
drive  him  on  to  the  bounds  of  iniquity.”  2 

By  exposing  the  errors  of  the  eighteenth  century,  which 
were  often  superficial,  and  by  showing  that  Catholicism 
made  its  appeal  to  reason,  de  Maistre  did  much  towards  the 
revival  of  Catholicism  in  the  nineteenth  century.3  - 

Another  factor  making  for  the  revival  of  Catholicism  was 
the  birth  of  the  Liberal  Catholic  Movement,  the  chief  honor 
of  which  undoubtedly  belonged  to  Lamennais.  The  Abbd 
Lamennais  had  first  come  into  prominence  through  the 
publication  in  1817  of  his  Essay  on  Indifference  in  the 
Matter  of  Religion.  In  that  work  he  sought  to  show  that 
the  validity  of  Christianity  rested  upon  its  universality. 
Proof  was  based  upon  the  “  philosophy  of  the  common 
reason  ”,  which  was  akin  to  the  “  general  will  ”  of  Rous¬ 
seau,  whose  influence  Lamennais  had  felt.  Christianity 
was  the  true  religion  because  it  had  been  accepted  by  the 
infallible  reason  of  the  human  race,4  which  found  its  ex¬ 
pression  in  the  Catholic  Church,  and,  in  the  last  resort,  in 
the  Pope.  But  beneath  this  affirmation  of  Catholic  dogma 
there  was  the  scarcely  veiled  suggestion  that  the  final  court 
of  appeal  is  in  the  people.  This  last  phase  of  his  teaching, 
however,  did  not  come  into  prominence  until  after  he  had 
fallen  out  with  the  Papacy. 

'  t  1 

What  the  people  wish  [said  Lamennais  in  one  of  his  later 
works],  God  himself  wishes;  for  what  the  people  wish  is 
justice  .  .  .  the  accomplishment  in  humanity  of  this  sublime 

X  3 

1  Les  soirees,  p.  242. 

1  Ibid.,  p.  243. 

1  Cf.  Ferraz,  M.,  Histoire  de  philosophie  en  France  au  xixe  siecle 
(Paris,  1880),  p.  2;  Brandes,  G.,  Main  Currents  in  Nineteenth  Century 
Literature  (London,  1906),  vol.  iii,  pp.  86-112. 

4  Calippe,  U Attitude  sociale  des  Catholiques  (Paris,  1912),  vol.  i,  p.  223. 


INTRODUCTION 


27 


27] 

saying  of  Christ,  “  that  they  may  be  one,  O  Father,  as  thou 
and  I  are  one.”  The  cause  of  the  people  is  then  a  holy  cause, 
the  cause  of  God.  It  will  therefore  triumph.1 

“  You  tremble  before  liberalism  ”,  said  Lamennais  to  the 
Catholics;  “Catholicize  it,  and  society  will  be  reborn.”  2 

To  Catholicize  liberalism  was  the  aim  of  the  group  of 
Liberal  Catholics  whom  Lamennais  had  gathered  around 
him,  the  most  notable  of  whom  were  Abbes  Laoordaiire  and 
Gerbet,  and  Counts  de  Montalembert  and  de  Coux.  In 
order  to  propagate  their  ideas  they  founded  the  Avenir  and 
the  Agence  Generate  pour  la  defense  de  la  liberte  religieuse. 
Although  Lamennais,  shortly  after  the  condemnation  of 
the  Avenir,  broke  with  the  Church,  his  disciples  refused  to 
follow  him,  and  remained  the  core  of  the  Liberal  Catholic 
Movement. 

Besides  the  political  tenets  of  the  Avenir,  for  which  it 
was  condemned  by  the  Pope  in  1832,  the  Avenir  possessed 
a  social  program.  The  industrial  revolution,  which  was 
just  beginning  to  affect  France,  and  the  laisser-faire  econ¬ 
omic  philosophy  were  creating  a  poverty  and  a  social  in¬ 
justice  that  threatened  even  to  surpass  the  evils  of  the  old 
regime.  Condemning  the  laisser-faire  doctrine  of  Adam 
Smith  and  J.  B.  Say,  the  Social  Catholics  of  the  Avenir 
denounced  those,  who,  in  order  to  “  concentrate  wealth  in 
the  hands  of  the  few  ”,  “  trafficked  in  the  sweat  ”  of  the  poor 
and  subordinated  the  “  comfort  of  the  proletariat  to  the 
splendor  of  the  favorites  of  fortune  ”,  and  demanded  social 
justice  for  the  proletariat.3 

w"'1 

1  Calippe,  op.  cit.,  p.  232. 

’  Leroy-Beaulieu,  Lcs  Catholiques  liberaux,  p.  82. 

*  Lecanuet,  Montalembert,  vol.  i,  p.  180;  Avenir,  June  30,  1831;  cf. 
Moon,  P.  T.,  The  Labor  Problem  and  the  Social  Catholic  Move¬ 
ment  in  France  (New  York,  1921),  chap.  i. 


28  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [28 

The  question  of  the  poor  [affirmed  the  editors  of  the  Avenir], 
which  is  not  only  a  question  of  political  economy,  but  a  question 
of  life  and  death  for  society,  because  it  is  a  question  of  life 
and  death  for  five-sixths  of  the  human  race,  is  more  than 
ever  one  of  those  that  calls  for  a  prompt  solution  in  Europe.1 

lamented  that  the  introduction  of  machinery  into  in¬ 
dustry,  instead  of  mitigating  the  condition  of  the  working 
classes,  had  imposed  on  them  longer  hours  of  toil,  and  was 
creating  a  race  of  physical,  mental  and  moral  degenerates. 
They  deplored  the  fact  that  the  destruction  of  the  organiza¬ 
tions  and  corporations  of  the  Middle  Ages  had  left  nothing 
but  “  the  individual  and  the  state  ”,  “  that  is  to  say,  anarchy 
and  despotism.”  2  They  arraigned  a  state  and  government 
that  enacted  “  brutal  laws  ”,  which,  under  penalty  of  im¬ 
prisonment,  forbade  citizens  “  to  associate,  to  act  in  con¬ 
cert  and  to  resist  en  masse  the  exactions  of  capitalists.”  * 
Liberty  of  association  was  therefore  one  of  the  demands 
that  the  Social  Catholics  made  of  the  government.  They 
called  upon  the  Church  to  strive  to  usher  in  a  reign  of 
social  justice  on  the  earth. 

The  lectures  of  Lacordaire,  whom  Monseigneur  Ouelen, 
the  Archbishop  of  Paris,  in  1835  called  to  the  pulpit  of 
Notre  Dame,  were  another  factor  in  the  popularization  of 
Liberal  Catholicism.  The  cathedral  which  had  once  heard 
the  praise  of  divine-right  monarchy,  which  had  sheltered 
the  throne  of  the  goddess  of  Reason,  which  had  witnessed 
the  coronation  of  a  Napoleon,  now  rang  with  the  voice  of  a 
champion  of  the  rights  of  the  people.  Not  that  Lacordaire 
was  silent  on  the  doctrines  of  Catholicism,  or  made  light 
of  the  rights  of  the  Church.  With  apologetic  for  Cath¬ 
olicism  couched  in  terms  that  appealed  to  the  age,  he  so 

1  Lecanuet,  op.  cit.,  pp.  176-177. 

7  Ibid.,  p.  181. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  182. 


INTRODUCTION 


29 


29] 

effectively  mingled  a  demand  for  popular  rights  that  the 
ancient  edifice  was  .thronged.  Hiis  lectures,  even  became 
a  theme  for  discussion  in  the  salons  of  Paris.  To  his 
admirers,  who  looked  for  the  conversion  of  the  “  large 
and  motley  ”  audience  that  flocked  to  hear  him,  his  elo¬ 
quence  ranked  with  that  of  Bossuet.  To  his  adversaries, 
“  who  saw  the  Revolution  peeping  out  under  each  of  his 
phrases  ”,  he  was  preaching  the  “  demolition  of  society  ” 
and  “  presenting  the  holy  water  in  a  bonnet  rouge  ”.  “  But 

always  the  majority,  composed  of  the  younger  people,  were, 
like  the  public,  in  favor  of  the  great  preacher.”  1  One  quota¬ 
tion  will  suffice  to  show  the  trend  of  his  thought. 

Voluntary  association  [declared  Lacordaire],  where  each  may 
enter  and  depart  freely,  is,  under  conditions  determined  by 
experience,  the  sole  efficacious  remedy  for  the  three  woes  of 
humanity,  poverty,  servitude  and  depravity.  The  Church  since 
the  day  of  Pentecost  has  proclaimed  that  aloud.  It  estab¬ 
lished  amongst  its  first  disciples  the  voluntary  community  of 
goods  and  of  life;  it  smote  with  death  that  hypocrisy  which 
so  soon  attempted  to  corrupt  its  laws ;  and  since,  in  the  course 
of  the  ages,  it  has  never  ceased  to  incite  the  faithful  towards 
association  in  all  its  forms,  for  all  purposes.  Its  unvarying 
maxim  has  been  to  unite  in  order  to  sanctify  and  protect,  as 
the  maxim  of  the  world  is  to  divide  in  order  to  rule.2 

Amongst  the  men  who  were  attracted  by  the  Liberal 
Catholic  Movement  was  the  Vicomte  Armand  de  Melun, 
who  beheld  in  it  the  “  surest  and  most  legitimate  way  of 
making  the  influence  of  Christianity  reenter  modern  soc¬ 
iety.”  3  While  he  found  “  their  rehabilitation  of  the  Mid¬ 
dle  Ages  ”  “  exaggerated  ”,  and  did  not  accept  “  all  their 
ultramontane  enthusiasm  ”,  that  did  not  prevent  him  from 

1  Melun,  Memoires,  vol.  i,  p.  156. 

3  Lectures  at  Notre  Dame ;  from  Calippe,  op.  cit.,  vol.  ii,  p.  9. 

3  Melun,  op.  cit.,  p.  147. 


3o  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [30 

identifying  himself  with  the  movement.  If  he  did  not  be¬ 
come  more  closely  associated  with  its  intellectual  leaders,  it 
was  because  he  felt  that  his  mission  was  the  more  obscure 
one  of  a  social  worker.1  “  By  visiting  the  poor,  by  re¬ 
lieving  the  sick,  by  instructing  and  caring  for  children  ”  he 
believed  that  he  could  “  remove  the  obstacles  that  separated 
the  lower  classes  from  God.”  Monseigneur  Afire,  who  suc¬ 
ceeded  Monseigneur  Ouelen  as  Archbishop  of  Paris,  urged 
him  to  enter  the  priesthood,  but  believing  that,  in  the  work 
of  reconciliation  of  the  people  with  the  Church,  a  layman  had 
an  important  role  to  fulfill,  he  refused.  Laymen  could  lend 
aid  and  gain  a  hearing  in  places  where  admittance  would  be 
refused  to  a  priest. 

But  Melun’ s  work  of  reconstruction  soon  became  more 
comprehensive  than  that  of  a  social  worker.  He  perceived 
the  necessity  of  combining  the  “  study  of  theory  ”  with  the 
“  practice  of  charity  ” ;  for  hitherto  that  study  had  been  left 
too  much  to  the  philosophers  and  economists,  in  the  belief 
that  the  practice  of  charity  sufficed  to  relieve  the  poor.  Ac¬ 
cordingly  in  1844  he  was  instrumental  in  founding  the  per¬ 
iodical  Annales  de  la  Charite  and  a  few  years  later  [1847] 
the  Societe  d’ Economic  Charitable .  The  rise  of  indus¬ 
trialism  with  the  attendant  spread  of  socialistic  teachings  2 
created  the  necessity  of  a  careful  study  of  the  social  and 
economic  questions  of  the  time  from  the  point  of  view  of 
Catholicism. 

It  belongs  to  Catholicism  [said  Melun],  to  the  men  of  good 
will  whom  it  inspires,  to  apply  their  intelligence  to  the  study 
of  those  questions,  to  the  solution  of  those  problems,  to  the 
investigation  of  all  those  means,  which  are  calculated  to 
diminish  suffering,  to  facilitate  labor,  and  to  remove  the  dis- 

1  Melun,  op.  cit.,  p.  149. 

a  Cf.  infra,  chap.  ii. 


INTRODUCTION 


31 


trust  and  the  misunderstandings  which  separate  men  and  arm 
them  against  each  other.  Such  was  the  purpose  in  the  foun¬ 
dation  of  the  Societe  d’ Economic  Charitable. 


The  Society  debated  such  questions  as  the  “  extinction  of 
pauperism  ”,  “  the  penitentiary  system  ”,  “  the  work  of 
children  in  factories  ”  and  “  cooperative  societies  ”,  and 
discussed  social  questions  with  the  presiding  officers,  the 
leaders  and  the  orators  of  popular  societies.  “  All  the  Cath¬ 
olic  youth  and  intelligence  took  part  in  its  works,  and  left 
it  only  to  defend  its  doctrines  in  the  Chamber  or  in  the 
press  ....  MM.  Montalembert,  Falloux,  Riancy,  Cochin 
often  cooperated  there.”  1  Such  was  the  work  of  Melun 
in  what  he  called  “  the  reconciliation  of  the  country  and  of 
the  century  with  Catholicism.”  2 

The  socialism  of  the  day,  most  notably  the  doctrines  of 
Saint-Simon,  also  influenced  the  Social  Catholic  movement. 

“  The  golden  age  is  not  behind  us,  but  in  front  of  us,” 
wrote  the  Comte  de  Saint-Simon  in  1814.  “  It  is  the  per¬ 

fection  of  the  social  order.  Our  fathers  have  not  seen  it; 
our  children  will  arrive  there  one  day,  and  it  is  for  us  to 
clear  the  way  for  them.”  The  most  important  phase  of 
his  teaching  was  his  doctrine  of  progress,  which,  however, 
he  himself  did  not  construct  into  a  definite  system  of  social 
progress.  That  was  left  to  his  disciples.  But  he  taught 
that,  as  the  goal  of  progress  is  social  happiness,  the  first 
need  was  the  amelioration  of  the  condition  of  the  working 
classes,  who  formed  the  vast  majority  in  society.3  Another 
phase  of  his  ideas  was  that  he  gave  an  important  place  to 
religion  in  the  progressive  development  of  mankind.  Al¬ 
though  he  had  been  schooled  in  eighteenth-century  thought, 

1  Melun,  op.  cit.,  p.  232. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  233 ;  cf.  Moon,  op.  cit. 

3  Bury,  J.  B.,  The  Idea  of  Progress  (London,  1920),  p.  282. 


32  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [32 

he  had  also  felt  the  religious  reaction  against  the  irreligious 
philosophy  of  that  age.  Not  deism,  or  even  Christianity, 
was  to  be  the  religion  of  the  future,  but  a  Nouveau  Christ - 
ianisme — the  title  of  a  work  which  he  left  unpublished  and 
which  promised  to  “  expand  the  .ethic,  the  dogma,  the  wor¬ 
ship  of  religion.”  1 

One  of  the  disciples  of  Saint-Simon  who  had  been  at¬ 
tracted  by  his  teachings  was  P.  J.  B.  Buchez,  a  convinced 
republican  whose  political  faith  rested  on  the  principles  of 
the  French  Revolution.2  In  1821  Buchez  had  been  one 
\  of  the  founders  of  the  Charbonnerie  frangaise  in  imitation 
of  the  Italian  Carbonari.  On  the  appearance  of  the  Nou¬ 
veau  Christianisme  in  1825  Buchez  attached  himself  to  the 
school  of  Saint-Simon.  “  Society  as  a  whole  ”,  said  Saint- 
Simon  in  that  essay,  “  ought  to  work  towards  the  ameliora¬ 
tion  of  the  moral  and  physical  life  of  the  poorest  class. 
Society  should  organize  itself  in  the  manner  most  calculated 
to  attain  this  end.”  3  It  was  a  doctrine  that  appealed  to 
Buchez.  But  on  the  development  of  pantheistic  tendencies 
in  the  school  of  Saint-Simon,  with  which  he  disagreed,  he 
abandoned  it.  Then  without  being  less  an  apostle  of  the 
Revolution  he  drifted  back  towards  Catholicism.'4  But  he 
carried  with  him  the  SaintJSimonian  idea  of  progress  by 
the  amelioration  of  the  condition  of  the  working  classes. 
This  combination  of  Saint-Simonianism  with  Catholicism 
is  shown  by  the  publication  in  1839  of  his  Essai  d’un  traite 
complet  de  philosophie  au  point  de  vue  du  Catkolicisme  et 
dn  pr  ogres.  -History  Buchez  visualized  from  the  point  of 

1  Weill,  G.,  L’Ecole  Saint-Simonienne  (Paris,  1894),  p.  2. 

*Castella,  G.,  Buchez ,  1796-1865  (Paris,  1911),  p.  8. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  9;  New  Christianity,  Eng.  translation  (London,  1834),  P-  26* 

4 Ibid .,  pp.  11-12.  Buchez,  however,  did  not  openly  profess  Catholicism 
until  just  before  his  death  in  1865. 


INTRODUCTION 


33 


33] 

view  of  a  progress  in  which  Christianity  played  an  im¬ 
portant  role.  It  was  from  Christianity  that  the  idea  of 
the  unity  of  humanity  and  the  unity  of  history  developed.1 
He  saw  in  the  Church  the  “  defender  of  all  the  poor  ”, 
“  the  friend  of  those  who  suffer  ”,  which  has  feared  neither 
persecution  nor  the  violence  of  the  temporal  power  in  its 
endeavor  to  withstand  the  oppressor.2  The  mission  which 
the  Church  has  fulfilled  in  the  past  it  still  has  to  perform 
in  the  future.  What  it  was  in  the  first  centuries  it  should 
be  still. 

Priests  [he  said],  you  are  the  pillar  of  light  that  ought  to  guide 
us  in  the  unknown  way  of  the  future.  You  bear  the  holy  ark 
before  which  the  flood  of  evil  passions  should  subside.  Priests, 
do  not  renounce  your  task;  do  not  leave  France  to  bear  the 
burden  and  the  responsibility  alone!  Do  not  curse  the  at¬ 
tempts  that  we  have  made,  nor  those  which  we  shall  be  able 
to  make.  Do  not  attach  yourselves  to  that  which  is  temporary, 
but  to  that  which  is  eternal.  It  is  because  you  have  remained 
static,  because  you  have  ceased  to  show  us  the  way,  that  we 
have  sought  it  ourselves  and  have  gone  astray.  It  is  because 
you  have  allied  yourselves  with  that  which  perishes  that  the 
people,  who  perish  not,  have  momentarily  forsaken  you. 
March  on,  and  the  world  will  follow  you !  3 

In  harmony  with  these  ideas  Buchez  sought  to  effect  a 
reconciliation  between  Catholicism  and  the  Revolution. 
The  purpose  of  the  Revolution,  he  believed  and  taught,  was 
identical  with  that  of  the  Church ;  and  he  would  have 
wished  “  that  the  Revolution  should  declare  itself  Christian 
and  that  it  should  desire  nothing  more  than  that  which 
Christianity  enjoined.”  4  He  reproached  the  clergy  for  re- 

1  Castella,  op.  cit.,  p.  33. 

2  Calippe,  op.  cit.,  vol.  i,  p.  173. 

3  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  173.  The  reference  is  to  the  old  monarchy. 

4  Castella,  op.  cit.,  pp.  13-14. 


34  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [34 

fusing  to  perceive  that  the  interests  of  the  Gospel  and  of 
the  Revolution  were  one,  and  he  sought  to  remove  the 
mutual  objections  of  each  against  the  other.  “  By  the  voice 
of  Buchez  ”,  Castella  has  said,  “  many  old  prejudices  against 
the  Church  were  destroyed.”  1  And  conversely  he  helped 
to  surmount  the  obstacles  that  the  Church  had  perceived  in 
the  Revolution.  According  to  one  of  his  disciples  he  was 
for  a  long  time  “  rtihe  doorkeeper  of  the  Church.”  2  Con¬ 
sequently  it  was  of  immense  significance  for  the  position 
that  the  Church  was  to  occupy  in  1848  that,  in  a  period 
when  the  republican  movement  was  growing,  the  affinity 
between  the  Gospel  and  the  Republic  should  be  emphasized. 

Another  liberal  Catholic  of  this  period  who  had  felt  the 
influence  of  Saint-Simon,  although  in  reacting  against  his 
doctrines  rather  than  in  becoming  his  disciple,  was  Frederic 
Ozanam.  Various  tendencies  had  been  felt  by  Ozanam : 
the  traditionalism  of  Bornald  and  de  Maistre ;  the  Romantic¬ 
ism  of  Chateaubriand,  whence  his  interest  fin  the  past  and 
the  attempt  “  to  show  religion  glorified  by  history  ” ;  and  the 
socialism  of  Abbe  Gerbet  and  Charles  de  Coux.  Com¬ 
bined  with  these  was  the  Saint-Simonian  conception  of 
social  progress.  With  this  background  Ozanam  was  to  be¬ 
come  one  of  the  leading  exponents  of  Social  Catholicism 
during  the  reign  of  Louis-Philippe,  and  the  Second  Re¬ 
public.  While  a  law  student  at  the  Sorbonne  he  founded 
the  Societe  de  Saint  Vincent  de  Paul .  which  was  a  lav* 
association  for  social  work,  and  which  almost  immediately 
developed  100  branches.  It  grew  out  of  the  need  that 
Ozanam.  and  other  fervent  Catholic  students  felt,  sur¬ 
rounded  as  they  were  by  fellow  students  who  were  Saint- 
Simonians,  Fourierists  and  deists,  of  “fortifying”  their 
faith.  In  its  discussions  the  “  boisterous  sphere  ”  of  poli- 

1  Castella,  op.  cit.,  pp.  13-14. 

2 Ibid.:  cf.  Lavisse,  Histoire  contemporaine,  vol.  v,  p.  106. 


INTRODUCTION 


35 


35] 

tics  alone  was  forbidden.  “  The  arena  was  open  and  opin¬ 
ions  of  all  sorts,  even  Saint-Simonian,  were  admitted  to  the 
tribune/’  1  But  in  its  wider  aim  the  purpose  of  the  society 
was  to  “  conserve  and  propagate  the  spirit  of  fraternity  ”,2 
and  to  make  Christianity  interpose  itself  within  the  breach 
that  was  gradually  splitting  French  society  into  two  hostile 
camps,  the  bourgeoisie  and  the  proletariat.3  In  1839-1840 
while  practising  law  at  Lyons  he  gave  a  course  on  Com¬ 
mercial  Law,  in  which  he  condemned  the  laisser-faire  doc¬ 
trine  and  branded  the  exploitation  of  the  laborer  by  the 
capitalist  as  “  slavery  ”,  advocated  associations  of  laborers 
and  government  intervention  in  “  extraordinary  circum¬ 
stances  ”,  and  demanded  a  sufficient  wage  for  the  laborer. 
In  1840  he  was  appointed  professor  of  literature  at  the 
Sorbonne.  In  all  his  work  “  the  apologist  reappeared  in 
the  man  of  letters,  in  the  savant,  in  the  historian  ” ; 4  but  it 
was  the  apologist  who  sought  to  show  that  Catholicism  was 
making  for  the  material  and  social  progress  of  mankind. 

Such  were  some  of  the  tendencies  that  were  making  for 
the  revival  of  Catholicism  under  the  Monarchy  of  July, 
and  preparing  for  it  the  popularity  that  it  was  to  meet  after 
February  24,  1848. 

But  one  other  factor  must  be  taken  into  consideration  if 
we  would  understand  the  position  of  the  Church  both  during 
the  July  Monarchy  and  the  Second  Republic,  and  that  is 
the  struggle  for  educational  liberty. 

III.  The  Struggle  for  Liberty  of  Instruction 

Under  the  Old  Regime  education  was  in  the  hands  of  the 
Church  and  the  religious  orders.  To  instruct  the  young 

1  Ozanam,  Lcttres,  vol.  i,  p.  67. 

2  Id.,  Melanges,  vol.  ii,  p.  47. 

3  Lettres,  vol.  i,  pp.  211-212. 

4Calippe,  Ozanam  (Paris,  1913)?  P-  126. 


36  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [36 

constituted  part  of  the  duties  of  the  clergy.  From  the 
primary  school  to  the  Sorbonne  education  was  controlled  by 
the  Church.  This  did  not  mean,  however,  that  the  state 
was  disinterested  in  education;  for  the  state  could  not  per¬ 
mit  anything  to  be  taught  that  would  be  prejudicial  to  the 
divine-right  monarchy.  If  the  state  permitted  the  Church 
a  monopoly  of  education,  it  was  in  order  that  it  might  in¬ 
struct  the  people  to  be  obedient  and  submissive  subjects  of 
His  Majesty.  Instruction  in  religious  faith  implied  in- 
instruction  in  monarchical  faith.1  Thus  we  find  the  General 
Assembly  of  the  Clergy  of  France  affirming  in  1770  that 
“  religion  instructs  the  people  to  bear  the  yoke  with  docility 
and  to  accept  without  resistance  the  chains  of  despotism.” 
To  be  an  obedient  Catholic  under  the  old  regime  was  to  be 
a  submissive  subject.2 

Towards  the  latter  part  of  the  eighteenth  century,  how¬ 
ever,  the  ecclesiastical  monopoly  of  education  began  to 
arouse  the  criticism  and  the  condemnation  of  the  philosophes. 
Rolland  complained  that  the  young  men  in  the  colleges  knew 
the  names  of  all  the  consuls  of  ancient  Rome  and  were  often 
ignorant  of  those  of  the  kings  of  France;  they  were  familiar 
with  the  great  deeds  of  Themistocles  and  Alcibiades,  but 
not  with  those  of  Du  Guesclin  and  Sully.3  Some  criticized 
the  existing  education  from  the  utilitarian  point  of  view, 
maintaining  after  Rolland  “  that  the  kingdom  is  never  more 
flourishing  than  when  the  reason  is  generally  cultivated  ” ; 
others  denounced  it  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  Rights 
of  Man,  reasoning  with  Diderot  that  “  instruction  gives 
dignity  to  man,  so  that  the  slave  speedily  feels  that  he  was 
not  born  for  servitude.”  14 

1  Seignobos,  et  al.,  La  lutte  scolaire  (Paris,  1912),  p.  vii. 

2  Ibid. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  2. 

4  Ibid.,  p.  4. 


INTRODUCTION 


37 


37] 

The  Revolution,  therefore,  destroyed  an  educational 
system  which  it  felt  inconsistent  with  its  principles.  A, 
clergy  that  was  so  closely  allied  with  the  monarchy  could 
not  be  trusted  to  teach  republican  faith.  Many  attacked 
the  Church,  if  for  no  other  reason  than  to  injure  the  absolute 
monarchy.  “  Many  maltreated  the  Majesty  of  God  only 
to  abase  the  majesty  of  kings.  They  overturned  the  altars 
to  shake  'the  thjrone.”  1  Consequently  it  was  necessary  to 
construct  a  new  education  for  a  new  regime.  In  order  to 
further  its  own  ends,  the  state  should  control  public  in¬ 
struction;  for  it  was  recognized  that  this  was  a  means  of 
consolidating  its  power,  as  the  system  of  the  Old  Regime 
had  been  of  supporting  the  divine  right  monarchy.  Public 
instruction  was  at  once  a  means  of  developing  and  conserv¬ 
ing  democratic  virtue.2 3  Moreover,  as  Condorcet  declared: 
“  Public  instruction  is  a  duty  of  society  towards  its 
citizens.”  8 

But  the  Revolution,  although  educational  theories  were 
not  lacking,  failed  to  construct  a  new  system  of  national 
education  based  on  new  principles.  Many  schemes  were 
proposed,  but  all  proved  to  be  abortive.  At  the  close  of  the 
Directory  the  Church  was  in  a  fair  way  to  regain  its 
monopoly  of  education.4  So  badly  discredited  was  the 
official  instruction  that  many  of  the  bourgeoisie  and  even 
some  of  the  officials  sent  their  children  to  schools  maintained 
by  the  Catholic  clergy.  It  was  reserved  for  Napoleon  to 
reconstruct  the  educational  life  of  France.  This  he  did  by 
unifying  education  under  what  was  known  as  the  Imperial 
University,  which  was  not  a  local  university,  but  “  the  sum 

1  La  lutte  scolaire ,  p.  vii. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  xii. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  9. 

4  Ibid.,  p.  20. 


CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [38 

total  of  all  the  public  teaching  bodies  of  the  French  Empire 
arranged  and  drilled  in  one  vast  instructional  array.”  1 
At  the  head  of  the  University  was  a  Grand  Master  as¬ 
sisted  by  a  council  which  consisted  of  ten  councillors  who 
were  appointed  for  life,  and  twenty  for  one  year.  Subord¬ 
inated  to  the  Grand  Master  were  twenty-seven  Academies 
scattered  over  France.  Each  Academy  was  presided  over 
by  a  rector  who  was  elected  for  five  years.  Relations  be¬ 
tween  the  Grand  Master  and  the  Academies  were  maintained 
by  means  of  general  inspectors.  The  University  Council 
itself  was  made  up  of  inspectors,  rectors  of  the  Academies, 
professors  of  the  various  faculties  and  principals  of  the 
Lycees.  It  prepared  the  regulations  for  the  governing  of 
the  University,  and  was  both  active  and  powerful.2  The 
entire  educational  life  of  France  from  the  elementary  school 
to  the  Sorbonne  was  thus  comprised  within  the  one  system. 
“  No  school”,  said  the  decree  of  March  17,  1808,  “no 
educational  establishment  whatsoever  may  be  formed  apart 
from  the  Imperial  University,  and  without  the  authoriza¬ 
tion  of  its  head.  No  one  may  open  a  school  or  teach  pub¬ 
licly  without  being  a  member  of  the  Imperial  University 
and  a  graduate  of  one  of  its  faculties.”  3  The  Lycees  and 
the  secondary  schools  of  the  communes,  the  Colleges,  were 
administered  directly  by  the  University.  Private  instruc¬ 
tion,  it  is  true,  might  still  continue,  but  only  under  the  strict 
tutelage  of  the  University.  Once  authorized,  private 
schools  were  obliged  to  submit  to  inspection,  pay  dues  to 
the  University  and  send  their  candidates  for  the  baccalaur¬ 
eate  to  the  classes  in  rhetoric  and  philosophy  given  by  the 

1  Rose,  J.  H.,  Napoleon  I  (New  York,  1916),  vol.  i,  p.  273. 

2  Weill,  G.,  Histoire  de  l’ enseignement  secondaire  cn  France  (1802- 
1920),  (Paris,  1921),  p.  25. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  23. 


INTRODUCTION 


39 


University.1  All  diplomas  were  granted,  and  all  degrees 
conferred,  by  the  University. 

In  appearance  the  University  possessed  a  monopoly  of 
education;  but  under  the  Empire  the  monopoly  was  much 
less  rigid  than  it  seemed.  The  Church  was  not  slow  to 
erect  petits  seminaires  which  not  only  trained  pupils  in¬ 
tended  for  the  priesthood,  but  which  soon  became,  by  reason 
of  their  lower  fees,  veritable  Colleges  in  rivalry  with  the 
Lycees  of  the  University.  In  many  cases  the  Jesuits,  who, 
after  the  dissolution  of  their  order,  had  remained  in  France 
as  “  Fathers  of  the  Faith,”  were  installed  as  instructors.  Not 
seldom  did  the  ecclesiastical  instruction  prove  itself  so 
vigorous  that  it  prevented  the  development  of  the  Lycees. 
Moreover  the  officers  of  the  University,  often  in  sympathy 
with  the  Church,  connived  at  the  non-inforcement  of  the 
Imperial  edict.  After  two  years’  existence  of  the  Univer¬ 
sity,  investigation  showed  that  almost  everywhere  eccles¬ 
iastical  rivalry  was  strong;  the  schools  controlled  by  the 
priests  were  flourishing,  while  the  Lycees  decayed;  and  the 
academic  councils  were  frequently  filled  with  former 
priests.2  Indeed  so  unsatisfactory,  from  the  Imperial  point 
of  view,  did  the  system  prove,  that,  on  November  15,  1811, 
Napoleon  issued  a  decree  which  was  calculated  to  increase 
the  monopoly  of  the  state.  Henceforth  there  should  be 
only  one  ecclesiastical  establishment  in  a  department,  which 
was  to  be  situated  in  a  town  where  there  was  a  Lycee  or 
College;  it  could  not  receive  pupils  over  nine  years  of  age 
if  the  school  of  the  University  could  provide  them  with 
lodging;  and  it  was  obliged  to  send  its  pupils  to  classes  in 
the  state  institution.3  But  this  new  decree  proved  ineffec- 


1  Weill,  op.  cit.,  p.  24. 

2  La  lutte  scolaire,  p.  28. 

3  Weill,  op.  cit.,  p.  47. 


40  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [40 

tive  in  strengthening  the  monopoly  of  the  University.  The 
clergy  attempted  to  open  schools  in  the  Grands  Seminaires 
under  the  pretext  that  all  their  students  were  intended  for 
the  priesthood.  The  new  edict  was  flagrantly  disregarded, 
even  officials  conniving  at  its  non- enforcement.  There  was 
a  partiality  for  clerical  instruction,  especially  amongst  the 
old  nobility — all  of  which  tended  to  favor  the  ecclesiastical 
schools  at  the  expense  of  those  of  the  University.1 

If  lay  instruction  was  unable  to  flourish  in  the  face  of 
ecclesiastical  opposition  during  the  Empire,  when  there  was 
some  pretense  at  enforcement  of  the  University  monopoly, 
still  less  could  it  do  so  under  the  Restoration  when  eccles¬ 
iastical  instruction  was  openly  favored.  Louis  XVIII  had 
been  on  the  throne  hardly  six  months  before  he  issued  an 
ordinance  permitting  bishops  and  archbishops  to  open  secon¬ 
dary  ecclesiastical  schools  in  each  department,  and  to  ap¬ 
point  their  instructors,  an  edict  that  practically  rescinded 
the  Imperial  edict  of  November  15,  1811.  Such  schools 
might  be  placed  'in  the  country  regardless  of  the  existence 
there  of  a  Lycee  or  College.  Their  pupils  were  exempted 
from  attendance  at  classes  of  the  Lycee  and  from  payment 
of  fees  to  the  University;  and  after  completing  their  studies 
in  the  ecclesiastical  school,  they  might  present  themselves 
before  the  University  for  examination  and  obtain  its  degree, 
which  would  be  conferred  gratuitously.2  Thus  ecclesias¬ 
tical  schools  were  established  throughout  France  under  con¬ 
trol  of  priests  and  even  of  Jesuits,  and  more  or  less  inde¬ 
pendent  of  the  jurisdiction  of  the  University.  During  the 
early  part  of  the  Restoration,  indeed,  some  semblance  of 
lay  control  of  the  University  was  maintained;  but  in  1822 
a  bishop,  Monseigneur  Frayssinous,  became  Grand  Master, 
and  for  six  years  the  University  remained  under  the  domina- 

1  La  lutte  scolaire,  pp.  30  et  seq. 

2  Debidour,  op.  cit.,  p.  695,  document  xiv. 


INTRODUCTION 


41 


tion  of  the  Church.  This  resulted  in  a  general  dismissal  of 
lay  headmasters  as  well  as  of  some  lay  instructors,  and  the 
substitution  of  secular  clergy  or  members  of  congregations.1' 
In  1828,  however,  with  the  fall  of  the  Villele  ministry, 
which  had  appointed  Frayssinous,  and  the  rise  of  the  Mar- 
tignac  ministry,  there  came  a  change  of  policy.  On  June 
16,  1828,  appeared  the  two  famous  ordinances  that  sought 
to  protect  the  University  against  the  clergy.  The  first  de¬ 
creed  that  no  one  should  remain  at  the  head  of,  or  give  in¬ 
struction  in,  a  school  which  belonged  to  the  University,  or 
in  one  of  the  secondary  ecclesiastical  establishments,  un¬ 
less  he  affirmed  in  writing  that  he  did  not  belong  to  any 
unauthorized  religious  congregation.  With  one  blow  the 
Jesuits  were  thus  excluded.  The  second  ordinance  limited 
the  number  of  pupils  admitted  to  ecclesiastical  schools  to 
20,000,  compelled  all  students  in  such  institutions  who  were 
over  fourteen  years  of  age  to  wear  the  ecclesiastical  habit, 
and  forbade  the  attendance  of  day  pupils.2  The  bishops 
immediately  prepared  to  resist;  but  they  were  silenced  by 
the  intervention  of  Rome.8 

But  during  the  Restoration  a  new  tendency,  which  was 
destined  to  be  predominant  during  the  monarchy  of  July, 
was  introduced  into  the  struggle  between  the  Church  and 
the  state.  This  was  the  demand  for  liberty  of  instruction, 
liberie  d’enseignement.  In  the  early  part  of  the  Restora¬ 
tion,  the  liberals,  following  out  their  principles  to  their 
logical  conclusion,  opposed  monopoly  in  education.  In  1817 
Benjamin  Constant,  “invoking  Adam  Smith  and  Con- 
dorcet,  refused  the  government  all  right  of  coercion.”  “  In 
education  as  in  everything  else  ”,  he  said,  “  let  the  govern¬ 
ment  watch  over  and  preserve,  but  let  it  remain  neutral 


1  Weill,  op.  cit.,  pp.  56  et  seq. 

2  Debidour,  L’Tglise  et  Vetat,  pp.  699  et  seq. 

3  Weill,  op.  cit.,  p.  66. 


42  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [42 

.  1  Another  liberal,  Renouard,  a  member  of  three 

educational  societies  which  were  founded  in  1828,  declared: 
“  Unity  of  instruction  is  the  chimera  of  every  despotism, 
whether  political,  scientific  or  religious.”  2  Irritated  by 
the  ordinances  of  1828,  the  Liberal  Catholic  party,  which 
was  then  in  its  infancy,  took  up,  amidst  the  ironical  con¬ 
gratulations  of  their  adversaries,  the  same  cry.  A  deputy 
of  the  right  was  able  to  say  that  he  congratulated  himself 
on  being  in  accord  with  Benjamin  Constant  against  the 
monopoly.  “  Like  him,  I  ask  only  liberty  for  all,  for  the 
one  as  well  as  for  the  other.  Like  him  I  think  that  the 
truth  is  strong  enough  to  require  only  the  neutrality  of  the 
government.”  3  But  it  was  Lamennais  who,  in  the  early 
stages  of  the  Liberal  Catholic  Movement,  was  to  become 
the  leading  exponent  of  this  doctrine.  It  had  seemed  a  ter¬ 
rible  scandal  to  Lamennais  that  the  Church  should  “  figure 
in  the  budget  [of  the  state]  in  the  same  fashion  as  the  fine 
arts,  the  theatres,  etc.”,  and  therefore  he  had  argued  for 
separation  of  the  two  powers.  Her  spiritual  empire,  he  con¬ 
tended,  could  best  be  maintained  by  liberty.  For  a  similar 
reason  he  believed  that  the  interests  of  the  Church  in  educa¬ 
tion  could  be  safeguarded  by  a  similar  remedy.  Catholic 
liberals  as  well  as  liberals  of  purely  political  tenets  could 
thus  meet  on  a  common  platform.  Both  alike  claimed  that 
they  were  heirs  of  the  liberties  decreed  by  the  Revolution 
of  1789.  I 

The  liberty  of  instruction  which  liberals  and  the  Liberal 
Catholic  party  were  both  demanding  at  the  close  of  the 
Restoration  was  promised  by  the  Charter  of  1830.  It  de¬ 
clared  that,  with  the  least  possible  delay,  a  law  would  be 
promulgated  that  should  embody  liberty  of  instruction,  and 

1  Weill,  op.  cit.,  p.  67. 

2  Ibid. 

3 Id .,  Le  Catholicisme  liberal,  pp.  12  et  seq. 


INTRODUCTION 


43 


43] 

that  all  laws  to  the  contrary  were  henceforth  abrogated.1 
Not  only  did  the  Avenir  immediately  clamor  for  the  ful¬ 
filment  of  .this  promise,  but  a  group  of  Liberal  Catholics, 
Montalembert,  Lacordaire  and  Charles  de  Coux  put  it  to 

11  . . .  nhi nmniiwwiMiiniiiiiifiiini  *■ 

the  test  by  opening  a  school.  But  the  school  was  promptly 
closed  by  the  police  and  its  teachers  arraigned  for  trial. 
Montalembert,  who,  through  the  death  of  his  father,  had 
just  become  a  peer  of  the  realm,  vindicated  his  cause  be¬ 
fore  the  Chamber  of  Peers,  and  demanded  that  the  pro-i 
mi  sc  of  the  Charter  be  carried  out.  “  All  my  life  I  shall 
congratulate  myself  ”,  he  declared,  “  with  having  been  able 
to  consecrate  these  first  utterances  of  my  voice  in  demand¬ 
ing  for  my  country  the  single  liberty  that  can  fortify  and 
regenerate  it.”  2  A  nominal  fine  was  imposed  on  the 
schoolmasters,  but  the  incident  was  in  reality  a  defeat  for 
the  government.  Although  the  condemnation  of  the  Avenir , 
which  came  shortly  afterwards,  was  a  repulse  for  the  Liberal 
Catholic  party,  the  beginnings  of  the  movement  were  not 
without  some  fruit.  In  1833  Guizot  was  instrumental  in 
the  passing  of  a  law  that  fulfilled,  as  far  as  primary  instruc¬ 
tion  was  concerned,  the  promise  of  the  Charter.  One  part 
of  the  monopoly  was  thus  suppressed.  In  1836  Guizot 
proposed  a  similar  project  for  secondary  instruction,  but 
the  fear  that  the  Jesuits  awakened  in  the  minds  of  the 
bourgeoisie  prevented  it  from  passing  the  Chamber  of  De¬ 
puties.  Then  in  1841  Villemain,  the  minister  of  public 
instruction,  brought  forward  a  new  law.  It  assured  liberty 
of  instruction:  but  in  subjecting  the  petits  seminaires  to 
the  inspection  of  the  University,  it  brought  down  the  con¬ 
demnation  of  the  higher  clergy,  and  Villemain,  unwilling 
to  engage  in  a  struggle  with  the  episcopate,  withdrew  it.3 

1  Mourret,  F.,  Le  mouvement  Catholique  en  France  de  1830  a  1850 
(Paris,  1917),  p.  195- 

2  Lecanuet,  op.  cit.,  vol.  i,  p.  250. 

3  Lavisse,  op.  cit.,  vol.  v,  pp.  334-335- 


44  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [44 

The  episcopate,  especially  after  the  condemnation  of  the 
Avenir,  had  been  slow  to  join  in  the  educational  conflict 
with  the  July  Monarchy.  Only  after  1841,  following  the 
lead  of  Monseigneur  Parisis,  the  bishop  of  Langres,  did 
they  take  part  in  the  struggle.  Thenceforth,  until  the  pre¬ 
paration  of  the  Falloux  law  in  1850,  lie  was  to  be  an  able 
collaborator  with  Montalembert.  The  entry  of  the  latter 
into  the  Chamber  of  Peers  where  he  vindicated  the  rights 
of  the  Church,  was  a  strange  sight  for  that  body  still  tainted 
with  eighteenth-century  scepticism.  “  The  entrance  into 
the  court  of  the  Luxembourg  of  a  knight  wearing  med¬ 
iaeval  armor  and  having  a  cross  on  his  breast  would  not 
have  appeared  more  strange  to  them  and  less  reasonable.”  2 
But  his  youthful  ardor  and  conviction  soon  won  him  a  re¬ 
spectful  hearing.  Then  the  support  of  the  episcopate  after 
1841  gave  the  former  followers  of  Lamennais  new  confi¬ 
dence.  They  resuscitated  the  Univers,  which,  under  the 
direction  of  Louis  Veuillot  and  Charles  de  Coux,  gave  them 
a  powerful  organ  in  the  press.  In  order  to  strengthen  the 
Catholic  movement  still  more  the  Parti  Catholiqne,  with 
Montalembert  as  its  acknowledged  leader,  was  created. 
“  The  Parti  Catholiqne  ”,  said  Louis  Veuillot,  “  was  born 
of  the  necessity  of  obtaining  liberty  of  instruction.”’  2  They 
promised  to  give  the  government  no  repose  until  the 
Church  was  granted  this  right  whidh  she  demanded.  They 
organized  the  Parti  Catholiqne  throughout  the  departments, 
and  prepared  to  play  a  political  role  in  the  elections  of  1846. 
Montalembert  urged  Catholics  to  put  liberty  and  religion 
above  every  other  interest.3 

The  violence  of  the  extremists  in  the  Parti  Catholiqne, 
of  whom  Louis  Veuillot  was  the  most  notable,  in  their  at- 

1  Thureau-Dangin,  op.  cit.,  p.  48. 

2  Le  parti  Catholiqne  (Paris,  1856),  p.  14. 

3  Lecanuet,  op.  cit.,  vol.  ii,  pp.  292  et  seq. 


INTRODUCTION 


45 


45] 

tack  against  the  monopoly  of  the  University 1  drew  from 
the  bourgeoisie  a  counter  attack,  of  which  the  Jesuits  were 
made  the  butt.2  This  new  phase  of  the  struggle  caused 
serious  embarrassment  to  the  Parti  Catholique,  and  led  to 
a  partial  suppression  of  the  Jesuits  in  France.  But  by  1845 
the  hostility  thus  awakened  had  somewhat  subsided.  Sal- 
vandy,  who  had  succeeded  Villemain  as  minister  of  public 
instruction,  seemed  disposed  to  conciliate  the  Catholics, 
and  in  1846  he  proposed  a  new  educational  law.  This 
project,  however,  inasmuch  as  it  still  maintained  the  in¬ 
spection  of  the  ecclesiastical  establishments  and  proposed 
to  prescribe  the  books  that  they  should  use  in  their  in¬ 
struction,  was  as  unpalatable  to  the  Catholics  as  its  prede¬ 
cessors. 

The  hostility  that  the  question  of  the  Jesuits  had  aroused 
against  the  Catholics  was  offset  by  the  advent  of  Pius  IX, 
who  was  elected  to  the  pontifical  throne  in  June,  1846. 
The  prospect  of  a  liberal  Pope  tended  to  make  the  Church 
more  popular  at  home.  Both  liberals  and  conservatives 
vied  with  each  other  in  acclaiming  the  election  of  a  liberal 
Pope.  Guizot  spoke  of  “  Pius  IX  accomplishing  the  re¬ 
conciliation  of  the  Catholic  Church  with  modern  society  ” ; 
Lamartine  called  his  election  “  a  great  good  fortune  for 
humanity  ” ;  Odilon  Barrot  compared  the  work  of  Pius  IX 
to  the  “  holy  endeavors  of  the  great  popes  of  the  middle 
ages”;  and  Thiers  declared:  “a  holy  pontiff,  who  joins  to 
the  piety  of  a  priest  the  wisdom  of  an  enlightened  prince, 
has  formed  this  very  noble  project  of  conjuring  the  revolu¬ 
tions  by  according  the  people  the  satisfaction  of  their  just 
needs.  It  is  an  admirable  work.”  3 

1  Lavisse,  op.  cit.,  vol.  v,  pp.  330  et  seq. 

7  Thureau-Dangin,  op.  cit.,  p.  253. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  474. 


46  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [46 

But  besides  the  favor  that  the  liberalism  of  Pius  IX  cast 
upon  the  Catholics  in  France,  another  factor  was  inclining 
the  bourgeoisie  towards  their  cause.  This  was  the  social¬ 
istic  propaganda,  which  between  1840  and  1848,  was  on 
the  increase.  The  alarm  that  it  began  to  arouse  within  the 
bourgeoisie  tended  to  drive  them  into  the  arms  of  the 
Church.  Nevertheless  the  fear  of  having  the  Jesuits  do¬ 
minate  secondary  education  outweighed  the  more  recent 
peril,  and  prevented  the  government  of  the  July  Monarchy 
from  giving  satisfaction  to  the  Catholics.  It  was  to  take 
the  Revolution  of  1848  and  its  socialistic  menace  to  count¬ 
erbalance  the  older  fear. 

The  very  fact,  however,  that  the  Catholics  formed  part 
of  the  opposition  towards  an  unpopular  government, 
instead  of  its  allies  as  in  1830,  helped  to  make  them  sympa¬ 
thetic  with  the  Republic  and  the  Republic  favorable  to¬ 
wards  them.  Catholics,  if  not  actually  allied  with  the  Re¬ 
publicans,  were  at  one  with  them  in  opposition  to  the  re¬ 
gime  of  Louis- Philippe  and  their  demand  for  liberty. 

The  breaking  down  of  the  alliance  between  throne  and 
altar,  the  Romantic  and  Liberal  Catholic  movements,  and 
the  struggle  for  liberty  of  instruction  are  the  three  factors 
that  explain  the  situation  in  which  the  Catholics  found 
themselves  at  the  beginning  of  the  Second  Republic. 


CHAPTER  I 


The  Catholics  and  the  Revolution  of  February 

The  relations  of  the  Church  with  the  state  under  the 
government  of  Louis-Philippe  had  been  such  that  his  fall 
caused  little  or  no  regret  on  the  part  of  the  Catholics.  For 
the  same  reason  they  found  little,  if  any,  difficulty  in  giving 
their  adhesion  to  the  Republic  proclaimed  on  the  24th  of 
February.  The  day  following  the  Revolution  the  Univers 
wrote:  “  The  dynasty  of  July  has  fallen.  .  .  .  New  men 
are  about  to  appear  on  the  scene.  God  performs  his  work 
by  all  sorts  of  agents.  He  accomplishes  his  designs  by 
ways  of  which  the  world  remains  unconscious.”  1  Several 
days  later  it  came  out  even  more  strongly.2 

Who  dreams  to-day  of  defending  the  monarchy  in  France? 
France  believed  itself  still  monarchical,  and  it  was  already  re¬ 
publican.  It  was  astonished  yesterday;  but  to-day  it  is  not 
even  surprised.  Having  recovered  from  the  first  moment  of 
confusion,  it  is  applying  itself  wisely,  courageously,  invincibly, 
to  provide  itself  with  institutions  which  it  has  for  a  long  time 
definitively  accepted.  The  monarchy  succumbs  under  the 
weight  of  its  faults.  No  one  has  wrought  its  ruin  as  much  as 
itself.  Immoral  with  Louis  XIV,  scandalous  with  Louis  XV, 
despotic  under  Napoleon,  unintelligent  up  till  1830,  crafty,  to 
say  nothing  more,  until  1848,  it  has  beheld  decrease  the  number 
and  strength  of  those  who  believe  it  still  necessary.  To-day 
it  has  no  longer  any  partizans. 

1  Univers,  February  25,  1848. 

2  Ibid.,  Feb.  27. 

47] 


47 


4g  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [48 

The  prospectus  of  the  Ere  Nouvelle,  which  appeared  during 
the  month  of  March,  was  equally  emphatic.  Referring  to 
the  fact  that  three  monarchies  had  fallen  in  less  than  half  a 
century,  it  remarked: 

France  is  asking  herself  if  kings  are  not  condemned  by  heaven, 
since  they  fall  so  easily;  and  she  wishes  .  .  to  live  and  to 
remain  under  another  form  of  public  administration.  Why 
should  we  prevent  it?  Has  the  Gospel,  has  the  Church,  ever 
condemned  any  form  of  government  whatsoever?  Do  Chris¬ 
tian  institutions  flourish  better  under  the  autocratic  scepter  of 
the  Czar  than  under  the  democratic  sky  of  the  United  States? 
What  divine  reason  is  there  why  we  should  oppose  the  estab¬ 
lishment  of  a  Republic  in  France?  Assuredly  none.  .  .  . 
There  is  therefore  no  duty,  religious  or  divine,  to  oppose  the 
will  of  France,  if  at  this  moment  she  prefers  the  republican  to 
the  monarchical  form.  That  is  a  matter  of  opinion,  not  of 
faith. 

It  was  not  enough,  however,  merely  to  allow  the  Republic 
-to  exist.  Let  us  follow,  urged  the  editors  of  the  Ere  Nou¬ 
velle,  with  the  most  sincere  good  will  each  step  that  France 
takes.  Let  us  become  the  most  devoted  of  her  children.1 

Not  less  hearty  was  the  adhesion  that  the  clergy  made 
to  the  new  regime.  On  the  8th  of  March  Monseigneur 
Affre,  the  Archbishop  of  Paris,  accompanied  by  several  of 
his  colleagues,  waited  on  the  provisional  government  and 
assured  it  the  support  of  himself  and  his  clergy. 

It  gives  me  pleasure  to  tell  you  [he  affirmed]  that  you  may 
be  certain  of  the  loyal  cooperation  of  all  the  clergy  of  Paris. 
This  is  not  a  protestation,  of  the  truth  of  which  I  have  any 
doubts.  I  have  beheld  the  ecclesiastics  in  all  parts  of  my 

1  Bazin,  Vie  de  Maret,  vol.  i,  p.  230,  where  it  is  given  in  extenso.  This 
prospectus  is  also  found  in  volume  i  of  the  Ere  nouvelle  in  the  Biblio- 
theque  Nationale. 


THE  CATHOLICS  AND  THE  REVOLUTION 


49 


diocese  manifest  the  most  ardent  desire  to  contribute  towards 
the  public  order  as  far  as  their  duties  permit.1 


The  government,  wrote  the  Archbishop  of  Sens  on  the 
29th  of  February,  1848,  “  wishes  to  associate  the  conse¬ 
cration  of  the  religious  sentiment  with  the  great  achieve¬ 
ment  of  liberty  regained,  to  invoke  the  divine  benediction 
upon  the  work  of  the  people.  .  .  .  Our  support  is  assured 
to  it.”  2  But  not  only  did  the  clergy  accept  the  Republic 
as  an  accomplished  fact;  many  went  further  still  and  wel¬ 
comed  it  as  a  Christian  institution,  as  the  true  consequence 
of  the  teachings  of  the  Gospel.  “  The  principles  whose 
triumph  should  usher  in  a  new  era  ”,  declared  the  Arch¬ 
bishop  of  Bourges,  “  are  those  which  the  Church  has  always 
proclaimed,  and  to  which  it  has  once  more  just  given  ut¬ 
terance  before  the  whole  world,  through  the  mouth  of  its 
august  chief,  the  immortal  Pius  IX.”  3  “  From  the  re¬ 

ligious  point  of  view  ”,  said  the  bishop  of  Gap,  “  the  in¬ 
stitutions  which  are  given  us  to-day  are  not  new :  they  were 
proclaimed  on  Golgotha.”  4  “  Our  flag  ”,  wrote  the  bishop 

of  Chalons,  “  now  bears  for  a  device :  Liberty,  Equality, 
Fraternity;  it  is  the  whole  Gospel  in  its  simplest  expression; 
we  wish  nothing  more.  The  Republic  ....  can  count  on 
us,  and  it  will  have  no  better  friends.”  5 

A  republic  [announced  Monseigneur  Parisis,  the  bishop  of 
Langres]  can  be  very  inoffensive ;  for  a  long  time  people  have 
been  accustomed  to  speak  of  the  “  republic  of  letters,”  to 
signify  literature.  A  republic  can  even  be  very  holy;  and 
people  have  always  singled  out  the  Christian  republic  rather 

1  Bazin,  op.  cit.,  p.  195. 

*  Univers ,  March  9,  1848. 

8  Ibid.,  March  9;  Mandate  of  March  6. 

4  Ibid.,  March  19,  18418. 

5  Ibid.,  March  14;  cf.  Bazin,  op.  cit.,  p.  199. 


5Q  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [50 

than  the  monarchy,  to  signify  the  Church.  But  what  is  more 
inoffensive  in  itself  than  literature,  and  what  more  holy  than 
the  Church  of  God  ?  The  proclamation  of  the  Republic  cannot 
therefore,  in  any  manner,  even  for  the  most  sensitive  con¬ 
sciences,  be  an  obstacle  which  will  prevent  them  from  adhering 
immediately  and  stoutly  to  the  provisional  government.  .  .  . 
Nothing  ...  is  more  exclusively  Christian  than  these  three 
words  inscribed  on  the  national  flag:  Liberty,  Equality,  Fra¬ 
ternity.  Far  from  repudiating  these  sublime  words  Christian¬ 
ity  claims  them  as  its  work,  as  its  creation.1 

The  lower  clergy  likewise  accepted  the  Republic  with  en¬ 
thusiasm.  “  Unprecedented  events  have  just  been  accom¬ 
plished  in  a  wholly  providential  manner  ”,  wrote  a  priest 
to  the  Democratic  Pacifique.  “It  is  the  dawn  of  a  new  day 
that  has  just  burst  upon  the  world.”  2  “  Forty  thousand 

cures  proclaimed  from  the  pulpit  the  benefits  of  the  repub¬ 
lican  regime.”  3  Religious  and  charitable  societies  marched 
in  procession  through  the  streets  of  Paris  to  pay  their  re¬ 
spects  to  the  new  government,  some  of  them  being  mistaken 
for  socialistic  demonstrations  for  so  doing.4  Prominent 
Catholic  laymen  also,  such  as  Melun,  Falloux  and  Monta- 
lembert,  legitimist  at  heart,  determined  to  support  the  new 
Republic.5 

Nevertheless  the  Republic  was  accepted  by  the  Catholics 
and  granted  its  support  only  on  certain  conditions.  The 
Church  can  live  as  comfortably  under  the  regime  of  a  re¬ 
public  as  under  that  of  a  monarchy,  declared  the  bishop  of 
Beauvais  on  the  1st  of  March,  “provided  that  it  be  granted 

1  Univers,  March  14,  1848. 

7  Democratic  Pacifique,  March  8,  1848. 

3  Dreyfus,  Ferdinand,  L’Ecole  en  1848  (Paris,  1908),  p.  8. 

4  Melun,  Vicomte  A.  de,  Memoires  (Paris,  1891),  vol.  ii,  p.  25. 

5  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  252;  Falloux,  Les  republicans  et  les  monarchies 
depuis  la  revolution  de  fevrier,  Revue  des  deux  mondes,  February,  1851. 


5i 


51  ]  the  catholics  and  the  revolution 

what  it  demands,  before  and  above  all  else,  the  liberty  to 
work  towards  the  salvation  of  souls  and  towards  the  hap¬ 
piness  of  all  ”.4  During  the  entire  reign  of  Louis -Philippe 
the  Church  had  been  contending  for  certain  liberties,  the 
most  notable  of  which  was  the  liberty  to1  give  instruction. 
When  therefore  ecclesiastics  and  laymen  who  had  the  cause 
of  the  Church  at  heart,  hailed  the  Republic  as  a  new  era  of 
liberty,  they  had  in  mind  this  right  most  eagerly  sought. 
For  some  doubtless  this  was  the  chief  reason  for  desiring 
the  Republic.  For  instance,  the  bishop  of  Nancy,  while 
speaking  of  liberty  in  general,  took  care  to  specify  “  liberty 
of  conscience,  liberty  of  association,  liberty  of  education.”  2 
“  We  wish  liberty  for  ourselves  and  for  all,”  declared  Mon¬ 
seigneur  Sibour,  bishop  of  Digne,  .  .  .  liberty  of  as¬ 
sembly  and  of  association,  liberty  of  worship,  liberty  of 
conscience,  and  liberty  of  education  which  is  inseparable 
from  all  the  others.”  3  Even  those  who>  were  convinced  re¬ 
publicans  singled  out  this  liberty.  The  editors  of  the  Ere 
Nouvelle  in  their  prospectus  specified  liberty  of  instruction 
as  one  for  which  they  would  struggle. 

i 

We  ask  for  ourselves  and  for  everybody  the  liberties  which 

have  hitherto  been  refused  us,  and  which  Protestant  America 

% 

has  refused  no  one  since  the  day  of  its  glorious  enfranchisement. 
We  ask  liberty  of  education,  liberty  of  instruction,  liberty  of 
association,  without  which  all  the  others  are  impotent  to  form 
men  and  citizens.4 

“  The  Church,”  affirmed  the  Univers,  “  asks  only  one  thing 
of  human  governments:  liberty.”  “Let  the  French  Re¬ 
public  put  the  Church  in  possession  of  this  liberty,  which 

1  Univers,  March  14,  1848. 

2  Bazin,  op.  cit.,  vol.  i,  p.  200. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  196. 

4  Ibid.,  p.  231. 


52  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [52 

everywhere  monarchs  refuse  it,  or  seek  to  take  from  it,  and 
there  will  be  no  better  or  more  sincere  republicans  than 
the  French  Catholics.” 1  Moreover,  one  reason  why  so 
many  of  the  clergy  offered  themselves  for  election  was  that 
they  might  the  more  readily  gain  this  coveted  right;  and 
they  gave  their  support  most  readily  to  those  who  were  will¬ 
ing  to  champion  it.  The  Catholics  looked  upon  the  Re¬ 
public  as  their  opportunity,  and  they  determined  to1  make  the 
most  of  it.  Thus  the  Abbe  Bautain  specified  in  his  elec¬ 
toral  circular  that  he  would  work  for  liberty  of  instruction 
in  all  its  degrees.2  Monseigneur  Sibour,  the  bishop  of 
Digne,  likewise  placed  liberty  of  education  and  of  instruc¬ 
tion  amongst  the  qualifications  that  electors  should  search 
for  in  their  candidates.3  And  the  Electoral  Committee  for 
Religious  Liberty  exhorted  the  faithful  to  accord  their  votes 
only  to  those  who  would  guarantee  all  the  liberties  of  the 
Christian  and  of  the  citizen,  amongst  which  it  also  specified 
“  liberty  of  education  and  instruction.”  4 

Then  another  condition  which  the  Catholics  made  to  their 
acceptance  of  the  Republic  was  that  it  should  be  orderly  and 
stable. 

What  is  it  that  the  Church  has  liked  in  the  Monarchy? 
[asked  the  Univers ;  and  replied  immediately]  :  a  principle  of 
order.  What  is  it  that  it  has  feared  in  the  republic  before 
the  encouraging  example  which  the  United  States  gave  to  the 
world?  The  lamentable  recollection  of  an  anarchy  which  was 
for  it  the  negation  of  all  liberty.5 

Any  such  thing  as  a  Civil  Constitution  of  the  Clergy  or 
Separation  of  the  Church  and  the  State  would  at  once  throw 

1  Univers,  February  27,  1848. 

2  Ibid.,  April  2,  1848. 

3  Ibid.,  March  24,  1848. 

4  Ibid.,  March  9,  1848.  Cf.  Election  populaire,  passim. 

5  Ibid.,  Feb.  27,  1848. 


THE  CATHOLICS  AND  THE  REVOLUTION 


53 


53] 

the  Church  into  the  ranks  of  the  reaction.  From  the  poli¬ 
tical  point  of  view,  said  the  Abbe  Etang,  the  interest  of  the 
Republic  itself  calls  for  the  maintenance  of  the  budget  of 
the  Church. 

i 

When  it  is  desired  to  make  a  new  institution  acceptable  to  a 
people,  there  are  certain  precautions  that  should  be  taken ;  and 
the  French  Republic  is  in  precisely  this  situation.  Behold 
these  trees,  symbols  of  liberty,  which  have  just  been  planted  in 
the  midst  of  our  public  squares !  .  .  .  Their  roots  have  not  yet 
penetrated  the  soil ;  they  have  as  yet  produced  neither  leaves, 
flowers,  nor  fruits.  They  have  not  put  forth  branches,  and  do 
not  therefore  afford  any  shade.  Such  is  our  young  Republic. 
It  has  not  taken  root  yet  in  the  monarchical  soil.  It  has  re¬ 
assured  no  interest,  foreshadowed  no  prosperity.  If  it  wishes 
to  live,  it  is  necessary  for  it  to  obtain  favor  in  public  opinion, 
and  unfortunately  it  has  been  discredited  before  its  birth.  Its 
predecessor  has  served  it  ill.  It  is  still  recalled  that  the  First 
Republic  began  its  attack  against  the  city  by  assaults  on  the 
sanctuary,  which  it  despoiled  before  it  overthrew  it.  Will  it 
be  good  policy  to  adopt  the  same  tactics  and  to  create  the  im¬ 
pression  that  one  aspires  after  the  same  end?  Catholicism  is 
unquestionably  the  religion  of  the  majority  of  the  French.  Will 
it  be  policy  to  injure  the  religious  sentiments  of  almost  the 
entire  nation  ?  And  it  is  quite  certain  that  they  will  be  wounded 
if  the  Catholics  are  denied  their  priests  and  their  worship. 
Thus  numerous  enemies  of  the  Republic  will  be  created.1 
There  can  be  only  two  parties  in  France  [declared  the  bishop 
of  Mans],  that  of  good  order  and  that  of  anarchy.  The 
Christian  religion,  principle  of  true  liberty,  is  essentially  op¬ 
posed  to  all  that  which  is  vicious,  unjust  and  disorderly.  Let 
the  new  government,  which  has  been  instituted  in  such  an 
astonishing  manner,  guarantee  all  interests,  as  it  has  promised, 
and  it  will  have  universal  sympathy  and  will  become  very 
strong.  This  is  my  most  sincere  wish.* 

1  L’Etang,  M.  de,  Du  budget  du  culte  Catholique  (Paris,  1848),  p.  33. 

*  Bazin,  op.  cit.,  vol.  i,  p.  194,  February  29,  1848. 


54  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [54 

Such  was  the  attitude  of  the  Catholics  towards  the  Re¬ 
public.  How  then  was  the  Church  regarded  by  the  gov¬ 
ernment  and  by  the  people? 

The  provisional  government  seems  for  the  most  part  to 
have  been  well  disposed  towards  the  Church.  Responding 
to  the  deputation  of  clergy  consisting  of  the  Archbishop  of 
Paris  and  several  of  his  vicars,  Dupont  [de  rEure],  the 
President  of  the  provisional  government,  said  on  behalf 
of  his  colleagues : 

The  provisional  government  receives  with  keenest  satisfaction 
your  adherence  to  the  government  of  the  French  Republic. 
Liberty  and  religion  are  two  sisters,  both  of  which  are  equally 
interested  in  living  together  on  good  terms.  We  count  on  your 
cooperation  and  on  that  of  the  clergy,  as  you  may  count  on  the 
benevolent  attitude  of  the  provisional  government.1 

One  of  the  first  official  acts  of  the  new  government  had  been 
to  publish  in  the  Moniteur  a  decree  by  which  it  assured 
the  Church  that  it  would  guarantee  the  free  exercise  of  all 
its  religious  activities.  At  the  same  time  it  requested  the 
Church  to  offer  prayers  for  the  new  Republic.2  Then  on 
the  nth  of  March  Carnot,  the  Minister  of  Public  Instruction 
and  Worship,  issued  a  circular  in  which,  after  felicitating 
the  clergy  on  their  unreserved  and  hearty  support  of  the 
new  institutions  which  the  people  had  founded,  he  called 
on  the  Church  to  have  “  faith  in  the  Republic  ”,  and  once 
more  promised  the  Church  the  support  of  the  government. 

This  will  not  be  that  vacillating  and  uncertain  protection  that 
princes  have  often  proffered  religion  in  the  hope  of  associating 

1  Bazin,  op.  cit.,  vol.  i,  p.  195. 

5  Moniteur,  March  1,  1848:  “.  .  .  the  provisional  government  invites  M. 
the  Archbishop  of  Paris  and  all  the  bishops  of  the  Republic  to  sub¬ 
stitute  for  the  old  formula  of  prayer  the  words :  ‘  Domine,  salvam  fac 
Rempublicam.’  ” 


THE  CATHOLICS  AND  THE  REVOLUTION 


55 


55] 

it  with  the  evil  designs  of  their  politics  [he  declared]  ;  the 
clergy  will  find  a  more  solid  and  more  durable  protection  in  the 
conformity  of  its  feelings  with  those  of  the  people.1 

Some  have  seen  in  the  fact  that  the  elections  to  the  Con¬ 
stituent  Assembly  were  set  first  for  Sunday,  the  9th  of 
April,  and  finally  for  Sunday,  the  23rd  of  April,  which  was 
Easter,  an  attempt  of  one  faction  of  the  government  to  place 
difficulties  in  the  way  of  the  clergy  and  the  faithful  taking 
part  in  the  elections.  It  has  been  stated  that,  acting  on  the 
advice  of  George  Sand,  Ledru-Rollin  chose  Easter  Sunday 
because  he  feared  that  the  activity  of  the  clergy  would  be 
directed  against  his  revolutionary  propaganda.2  On  the 
other  hand  the  date  of  Easter  Sunday  caused  some  scruples 
amongst  a  few  members  of  the  government,  who  feared  to 
offend  the  clergy  and  the  religiously  inclined  of  the  popula¬ 
tion.'3  Lamartine,  however,  supported  this  arrangement, 
arguing  that  it  was  a  coincidence  that  augured  well  both  for 
the  Republic  and  for  religion.4  The  probability  is  that  this 
diversity  of  opinion  was  due  to  the  radical  division  that  ex¬ 
isted  within  the  provisional  government  itself,  the  moderates 
being  inclined  to  look  for  the* support  of  the  Church,  while 
the  radicals,  represented  by  Ledru-Rolliin,  would  distrust 
that  same  influence  as  being  opposed  to  the  kind  of  republic 
which  they  desired.  The  moderates,  beholding  in  the  clergy 
a  source  of  strength  by  no  means  to  be  disregarded,  urged 
them  to  make  full  use  of  their  rights  as  citizens,  and  thus 
aid  in  the  establishment  of  a  stable  government.  “  It  would 
be  wrong  for  the  priests  to  renounce  their  character  of 
public  officials  ”,  declared  the  National.5 

1  Moniteur,  March  15th,  1848. 

2  Veuillot,  Louis  Veuillot,  vol.  ii,  p.  229. 

8  Stern,  Revolution  de  1848,  vol.  ii,  p.  202. 

4  So  Daniel  Stern. 

5  Univers,  April  12,  1848. 


56  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [56 

The  people  as  a  whole  were  no  less  well  disposed  to¬ 
wards  the  Church  and  the  clergy  than  the  majority  in  the 
government.  A  curious  incident  which  occurred  during 
the  sack  of  the  Tuileries  illustrates,  this  fact.  A  student 
of  the  polytechnic  school,  fearing  that  the  chapel  of  the 
palace  would  be  desecrated  by  the  mob,  “  ran  in  all  haste  ” 
thither  through  rooms  crowded  with  men  intent  on  casting 
out  of  the  windows  the  spoils  of  royalty,  and  rescued  the 
sacred  vessels  and  the  crucifix,  which  he,  along  with  several 
others  who  had  joined  him,  started  to  carry  to  the  neighbor¬ 
ing  Church  of  Saint  Roch. 

In  the  midst  of  the  respectful  people  who  surrounded  them, 
an  enemy  of  the  freedom  of  worship  uttered  a  cry  of  hatred 
against  the  divine  friend  of  the  poor  and  of  the  laborers.  Then 
the  student  from  the  polytechnic  school,  who  carried  the  cruci¬ 
fix,  raised  it  in  the  air,  crying,  “  You  wish  to  be  free!  Well! 
do  not  forget  that  you  can  only  be  free  through  the  Christ  ” — 
“Yes!  yes!”  replied  a  great  number  of  voices:  “He  is  the 
master  of  all.”  And  their  heads  were  uncovered  to  cries  of 
“  Vive  le  Christ!  ”  The  crowd  immediately  joined  these  heroes 
who  knew  so  well  how  to  defend  their  country  and  their  God. 
The  crucifix  and  the  sacred  vessels  were  then  carried  in  pro¬ 
cession  to  the  church  of  Saint  Roch,  where  they  were  received 
by  the  cure.  On  giving  him  these  precious  articles  they  craved 
his  blessing.  “  We  love  God,”  they  exclaimed:  “  we  bring  you 
his  image,  which  could  not  remain  in  the  dwelling  of  a  perjurer. 
Vive  la  liberte!  Vive  la  religion!  Vive  Pie  IX.”1 

It  was  this  incident  that  Lacordaire  cited  from  the  pulpit  of 
Notre  Dame  to  illustrate  the  attitude  of  the  people  towards 
the  Church,  and  awakened  thereby  the  applause  of  hjs 
hearers.2 

The  popularity  of  the  clergy  with  the  people  is  also  illu- 

1  La  rcpublique  et  la  religion  (Paris,  1848),  pp.  3-4. 

2  Foisset,  Vic  de  Lacordaire,  vol.  ii,  p.  178. 


57 


57]  THE  CATHOLICS  AND  THE  REVOLUTION 

strated  by  another  fact.  After  the  proclamation  of  the 
Republic  the  order  of  the  day  was  the  planting  of  trees  of 
liberty,  an  “  occasion  more  of  glasses  of  wine  than  of 
prayers,”  said  Melun.1  Nevertheless  the  people  believed 
that  their  trees  would  not  grow  if  the  clergy  did  not  come 
to  bless  them.2  “  One  is  surprised  ”,  said  Ozanam,  “  to 
meet  the  Cross  and  priests  forming  processions  on  the 
squares.  One  did  not  expect  that  the  Revolution  of  Feb¬ 
ruary  would  reestablish  processions.”  3  A  friend  of 
Ozanam’s,  one  Abbe  Cherruel,  had,  by  the  I2th  of  April, 
blessed  thirteen  such  trees.'4  The  planting  of  a  tree  of 
liberty  is  described  in  La  republique  et  la  religion.  A  great 
crowd  having  gathered  in  the  Champ  de  Mars  for  the  pur¬ 
pose  of  planting  one  of  these  trees  of  liberty,  the  leaders 
sent  a  deputation  to  the  cure  of  the  parish  of  St.  Peter  to 
request  him  to  come  “  to  invoke  the  blessing  of  heaven  upon 
the  work  of  the  people.” 

Having  arrived  on  the  Champ  de  Mars  he  is  received  by  cries 
a  thousand  times  repeated  of  “  Vive  la  religion  Catholique! 
Vivent  les  ministres  du  Christ!  ”  An  improvised  pulpit  is 
erected.  The  priest  clad  in  his  ecclesiastical  garb  then  ad¬ 
dresses  the  multitude  religiously  attentive :  “  Brethren,  why 
have  you  requested  me  to  come  into  your  midst  to  bless  this 
tree  of  liberty  ?  Ah !  because,  as  a  result  of  the  Christian 
training  which  you  have  received,  you  have  not  beheld  in  me 
an  ordinary  man.  You  know  that,  in  spite  of  my  unworthi- 

1  Melun,  Memoires,  vol.  i,  p.  253. 

2  Ozanam,  Lettres,  vol.  ii,  p.  206.  Better  of  March  31,  1848. 

3  Ibid. 

‘Ibid.,  p.  211.  Letter  of  April  12,  1848.  He  speaks  of  the  people  of 
Paris  as  seeking  every  occasion  to  give  evidence  of  their  respect  for 
religion,  their  sympathy  for  the  clergy.  “  My  friend  the  Abbe  Cherruel 
.  .  .  is  still  greatly  moved  by  the  proofs  of  faith  which  he  has  found 
in  this  crowd,  in  which  since  1815  the  priest  has  been  accustomed  to  see 
only  enemies  of  God  and  of  the  Church." 


5S  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [58 

ness,  I  am,  as  priest,  the  representative  of  God  among  men. 
It  seems  to  me  therefore  that  at  this  hour  I  behold  the  heavens 
open  above  our  heads,  and,  from  the  height  of  his  eternal 
throne,  God  planting  by  means  of  my  hands,  God  blessing 
through  my  mouth,  this  tree  of  liberty.” 

This  was  hailed  with  acclamations  :  “  Vive  le  cure !  Vive 
la  religion!  ” 

“Brethren”  [continued  the  priest],  “that  which  God  has 
planted,  men  cannot  cut  down.  That  which  God  has  blessed, 
men  ought  never  to  profane.”  Then  he  bestowed  his  bene¬ 
diction  upon  the  people.  ...  In  the  meantime  rain  was  falling 
in  torrents.  Suddenly  a  magnificent  rainbow  displayed  its 
colors  against  the  clouds.  The  priest  addressing  the  people 
for  the  second  time  said :  “  This  rain  is  the  celestial  dew  that 
comes  to  fertilize  your  tree  of  liberty  and  make  it  grow. 
Brethren,  let  us  all  swear  that  never  a  single  drop  of  human 
blood  will  come  to  stain  and  dishonor  the  roots  of  this  hal¬ 
lowed  tree.”  1 

It  is  certain  that  during  the  revolutionary  days  acts  of 
hostility  against  the  Church  or  the  clergy  were  extremely 
rare.2  One  attack  again  a  monastery  at  Lyons  seems  to 
have  been  sporadic.3  It  was  much  more  common  for  the 
people  to  protect  the  Church  and  the  clergy.  The  Abbei 
Lacordaire  appeared  in  the  Constituent  Assembly  clad  in 
the  garb  of  a  Dominican  friar  and  was  greeted  with  cheers 
by  the  people.4  A  Catholic  proletarian  republican  urged 
the  people  of  Paris  to  go  to  the  clergy  with  their  griefs, 

lLa  republique  et  la  religion,  pp.  18-19. 

2  Le  comite  des  cultes  en  1848,  art.  from  La  revolution  de  1848,  1905, 
p.  186. 

*Cf.  Univers,  March  and  April,  passim. 

4  Joisset,  op.  cit.,  vol.  ii,  p.  186.  “  We  see  every  day  churches  re¬ 
spected,  and  priests  honored.”  Ere  nouvelle,  April  15,  1848. 


59]  the  CATHOLICS  AND  THE  REVOLUTION  59 

assuring  them  that  they  would  there  find  an  attentive  ear.1 
Some  of  the  clergy  participated  in  the  activities  of  the 
clubs,  three  of  which  were  presided  over  by  priests.2  The 
alliance  thus  seemed  to  be  cemented  between  the  Church 
and  the  people. 

It  was  perhaps  inevitable  that  the  Revolution  of  1848 
with  its  reminiscences  of  1789  should  raise  the  question  of 
the  legal  relations  existing  between  the  Church  and  the 
state.  Moreover  the  Avenir ,  the  journal  published  by 
Lamennais  and  Lacordaire  in  the  early  part  of  the  July 
Monarchy,  had  called  for  the  separation  of  the  two  powers. 
Lamartine  also  as  late  as  1845  had  advocated  the  “  free 
Church  in  the  free  state  ”  as  a  means  of  solving  the  educa- 
tional  problem.3  Whether  the  precedents  of  Lamennais 
and  Lamartine  bore  much  weight  or  not,4  the  faot  remains 
that  very  shortly  after  the  proclamation  of  the  Republic  the 
question  began  to  be  raised.  The  Univers  of  the  nth  of 
March  announced  that  “  already  in  the  papers  and  in  the 
clubs  the  question  of  the  relation  of  the  Church  with  the 
state,  with  all  that  it  involved,  was  being  discussed.” 

If  the  Church  wishes  to  retain  its  civil  establishment  [announced 
the  Democratic  Paicifique] ,  the  Republic  will  ask  it  to  go  back 
to  its  original  constitution  and  to  democratize  itself.  If  the 
Church  intends  to  keep  its  present  constitution,  its  aristocratic 
constitution,  the  relic  of  the  epochs  of  its  decadence,  the  Re¬ 
public  will  abandon  it  in  its  independence  and  in  its  isolation. 

1  Un  proletaire  catholique  republicain  (Paris,  1848). 

2  La  republique  et  la  religion,  p.  12. 

8  Whitehouse,  Lamartine,  vol.  ii,  chap.  37,  esp.  p.  140. 

4  Guerin  (L.  F.),  De  la  separation  des  deux  puissances,  quotes  the 
opinions  of  Lamennais  and  argues  for  separation  of  Church  and  State; 
Gilon,  H.,  Voix  d’un  Catholique,  claims  to  be  a  follower  of  Lamennais, 
and  quotes  his  opinion  as  well  as  that  of  Lamartine  on  the  suppression 
of  the  ecclesiastical  budget;  Les  Coeurs, L.,  L’Ltat  et  le  budget  des  cultes, 
quoted  Lamartine  in  arguing  for  separation. 


60  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [60 

But  even  in  this  case  the  Republic  will  respect  the  liberty  of 
the  Church,  because  henceforth  the  French  nation  wishes 
liberty  of  association,  liberty,  sincere,  absolute.  For  our  part 
we  offer  the  clergy  our  brotherly  counsels.  The  Univers  de¬ 
mands  that  the  clergy  be  consulted  regarding  its  relations  with 
the  state.  Nothing  is  more  just.  But  the  Univers  seems  to 
designate  the  bishops  as  the  only  legitimate  representatives  of 
the  clergy.  In  the  eyes  of  the  Republic,  however,  the  bishops 
are  much  more  the  representatives  of  the  old  royalty,  which 
has  chosen  them,  than  the  real  representatives  of  the  clergy. 
Let  the  clergy  show  themselves  to  the  Republic  in  their  uni¬ 
versality;  let  provincial  assemblies,  let  a  national  council  re¬ 
store  the  Church  its  liberty,  with  the  Christian  principle  of 
universal  election,  and  then  the  princes  of  the  clergy  will  have 
a  right  to  homage  and  sympathy.  As  long  as  the  bishop  shall 
not  be  elected  by  the  priests,  as  long  as  the  appointment  of 
Caesar  shall  leave  on  the  episcopal  mitre  its  badge  of  servitude, 
there  will  be  sufferance  in  the  Church,  mistrust  in  the  people. 
We  desire  the  union  of  the  people  and  the  Church;  and  we 
indicate  the  means  of  attaining  it:  the  democratization  of 
the  clergy.1 

The  question  of  separation  of  the  two  powers  was  dis¬ 
cussed  in  some  of  the  clubs,  in  one  of  which  the  consensus 
of  opinion  seems  to  have  been  in  favor  of  such  a  step.2 
One  speaker  argued  that  it  was  unjust  for  a  citizen  to  be 
obliged  to  support  a  religion  which  he  did  not  desire.  Let 
the  priests,  the  pastors,  the  rabbis,  be  as  the  doctors,  sup¬ 
ported  by  the  people  who  desire  them.  Religion  would 
not  perish  because  of  such  separation;  and  he  referred  to 
the  United  States  and  to  the  fact  that  churches  were  main¬ 
tained  in  France  during  the  Revolution  and  before  Napoleon 

x  Democratic  pacifique,  March  9,  1848. 

*  Qui  doit  payer  les  pretresf  Reponse  d’un  club  a  la  question  (Paris, 
1848).  The  question  was  also  discussed  at  the  club  de  Vecole  de  la 
mode  cine  when  Lacordaire  was  present.  Univers,  April  6,  1848. 


6i]  THE  CATHOLICS  AND  THE  REVOLUTION  6 1 

negotiated  the  Concordat  with  the  Papacy.1  The  financial 
reason  was  also  urged.  The  suppression  of  the  ecclesias¬ 
tical  budget  would  free  the  state  from  a  great  drain  on 
its  resources.  Let  this  money  be  expended  for  educational 
purposes  so  that  all  might  profit  by  its  expenditure.2  An¬ 
other  speaker  urged  the  necessity  of  maintaining  the  budget 
of  the  Church  in  order  to  keep  the  clergy  under  the  rein  of 
the  state.  “  For  if  to-day  they  are  the  devotees  of  the 
Republic,  yesterday  they  were  the  servants  of  Louis-Phil- 
ippe.”  Undoubtedly  Pius  IX  was  a  truly  liberal  pope,  but 
his  predecessor  had  been  “  a  real  Jesuit  ”  and  an  “  enemy  of 
liberty  ”,  and  his  successor  might  be  worse  still.  It  was 
impossible  therefore  for  the  Republic  to  have  confidence  in 
a  body  of  clergy  whose  head  was  at  Rome  rather  than  in 
France.  But  if  the  Republic  continued  to  pay  them,  it 
would  have  them  under  its  control.3  Still  another  speaker 
made  use  of  the  same  argument  to  reject  the  budget  of 
worship.  “  The  clergy,  Pope,  archbishops,  bishops  are 
more  subtle  than  we  are,”  he  argued;  “  they  discuss  their 
plans  in  secret.  If  there  ever  was  a  powerful  aristocracy, 
they  are  that.”  If  we  are  going  to  continue  to  pay  the 
clergy,  we  shall  have  to  look  out  for  the  safety  of  the 
Republic;  for  we  are  thus  giving  the  Church  the  more 
weapons  to  use  against  it.4  What  will  happen  if  you  dis¬ 
continue  state  payment  of  the  clergy? 

The  lower  clergy,  the  simple  priests,  those  whom  you  know 
and  love,  will  daily  acquire  more  strength  against  those  who 
lord  it  over  them.  It  will  come  to  pass  that,  as  in  the  primitive 
Church,  these  humble  priests  will  regain  the  right  to  choose 

1  Qui  doit  payer  les  pretres?  p.  3. 

5  Ibid.,  p.  5. 

8  Ibid.,  p.  2. 

4  Ibid.,  p.  4. 


62  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [62 

their  bishops  and  archbishops,  who  are  to-day  a  general  staff 
wholly  at  the  service  of  the  Pope,  who,  do  not  forget,  resides 
at  Rome  and  who  is  not,  and  never  will  be,  French.  .  .  .  from 
the  moment  that  payment  [of  the  clergy]  becomes  purely 
voluntary,  then  all  will  change,  and  you  will  have  a  clergy 
truly  French,  which  will  stick  to  France.  Rome  will  no  longer 
give  the  watchword,  and  she  will  daily  lose  some  of  that  as¬ 
cendency  which  has  caused  so  many  ills  and  commotions  in  our 
country,  which  is  to-day,  and  rightly,  a  cause  of  fear  and 
mistrust  for  many  citizens.  What  would  you  say,  my  friends, 
if  the  generals  and  colonels  chosen  by  the  Republic  could  not 
command  our  armies  and  our  regiments  without  the  sanction 
of  the  King  of  Prussia,  and  if  they  looked  upon  him  as  their 
real  commander,  obeying  him  and  looking  to  him  for  pro¬ 
motion?  Would  you  be  foolish  enough  to  pay  them  as  long 
as  they  remained  under  his  orders  ?  Certainly  you  would  not ! 
The  clergy  which  you  have  been  paying  since  1802  [the  ex¬ 
periment  is  long  enough,  I  hope]  is  it  not  more  and  more 
ultramontane  every  day?  that  is  to  say,  more  devoted  to  the 
Pope,  and  consequently  less  to  the  nation?  Far  then  from 
preventing  it,  it  is  the  salary  that  has  done  that.  Therefore 
let  the  Republic  no  longer  pay  for  religion;  but  let  him  who 
wishes  it  pay  for  it.  And  many  will  do  it,  be  assured  of  that : 
I  who  speak  to  you  first  of  all,  for  I  wish  it  for  myself  and 
my  children.  In  this  way  the  priests  will  become  independent. 
They  will  appoint  the  bishops  and  archbishops ;  they  will  choose 
the  most  worthy,  and  then,  but  only  then,  will  they  form  one 
clergy  obeying  nothing  but  its  own  conscience  and  the  French 
interests.  They  will  be  able  to  retain  their  good  relations  with 
the  Pope,  but  they  will  no  longer  be  subject  to  him  nor  receive 
his  orders  in  all  things,  because  the  people  will  hold  the  purse, 
and  it  will  be  necessary  to  take  them  into  consideration.1 

That  these  republicans  desired  to  put  their  ideas  into 
practise  with  regard  to  the  Church  and  its  constitution  is 


1  Qui  doit  payer  les  pretres?  pp.  5-6. 


THE  CATHOLICS  AND  THE  REVOLUTION 


shown  by  the  multitudes  of  petitions  that  were  showered 
upon  the  Committee  on  Worship  appointed  by  the  Constitu¬ 
ent  Assembly.1  The  general  tenor  of  the  more  radical  of 
these  petitions  seems  to  have  been  to  break  the  power  of 
the  higher  clergy  and  to  make  the  lower  more  independent, 
or,  as  the  Democratic  PaciHqiic  put  it,  to  compel  the  Church 
“  to  democratize  itself  A  There  thus  seems  to  have  been 
a  strong  desire  on  the  part  of  many  republicans  to  lay  hands 
on  the  Church  as  well  as  on  every  other  institution,  and 
make  it  conform  to  what  they  regarded  as  republican  prin¬ 
ciples,2 

But  the  Church  was  too  strong  to  suffer  any  drastic 
measures  to  be  taken.  One  reason  why  the  clergy  took  such 
a  great  interest  in  the  elections  to  the  Constituent  Assembly 
was  that  its  weight  might  be  thrown  against  the  separation 
of  the  ecclesiastical  and  the  secular  powers.  It  was  part  of 
the  electoral  platform  of  some  of  the  candidates  that  state 
payment  of  the  clergy,  which  was  looked  upon  as  a  just  re¬ 
imbursement  for  the  confiscation  of  the  property  of  the 
Church  iby  the  Revolution,  should  be  continued.3  One  of 
the  first  deliberations  of  the  Committee  on  Worship,  which 
had  been  appointed  early  in  May,  1848,  by  the  Constituent 
Assembly,  dealt  with  the  petition  of  Citizen  Boissier,  who 
asked  for  the  suppression  of  the  ecclesiastical  budget.4  All 
the  members  of  the  committee  were  in  accord  to  reject  the 
conclusions  of  the  petition.  Even  Arnaud  [de  TAriege], 
who  desired  the  greatest  possible  degree  of  separation  be¬ 
tween  the  Church  and  state,  seems  to  have  submitted  to  the 


1  Archives  Nationales  ( versement  de  la  Chambre  des  Deputes )  276, 
dossier  4,  comite  des  cultes,  passim. 

2  Cf.  Bonnetat  (Abbe  J.),  Inamovibilite  des  desseruants  (Paris,  1848), 
p.  61. 

3  Univers,  April  19,  1848. 

4  Archives  nationales,  op.  cit.,  session  of  May  29,  1848. 


64  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [64 

will  of  'the  majority.1 *  Thus  the  committee  began  its  work, 
to  the  great  satisfaction  of  the  Univers,  by  decreeing  that 
the  Republic  should  support  the  'Church.  The  clergy  them¬ 
selves  were,  for  the  most  part,  hostile  to  separation.  Lacor- 
daire,  who  in  1831,  when  he  was  under  the  influence  of! 
Lamennais,  had  argued  for  separation  now  contributed 
articles  to  the  Ere  Noiwelle  in  which  he  contradicted  the 
position  he  had  maintained  in  the  Avenir r  Lamennais 
seems  to  have  adhered  to  his  old  position,  but  he  was  no 
longer  within  the  Church;  3  and  even  with  him,  if  we  can 
believe  Odilon  Barrot,  it  was  merely  theoretical.  The 
latter  relates  in  his  memoirs'4  that  one  day  the  members  of 
the  committee  appointed  to  prepare  the  constitution  for  the 
Republic  found  themselves  face  to  face  with  the  question 
of  absolute  separation  of  Church  and  state. 

We  had  a  clean  slate  before  us  [he  declared]  ;  it  would  have 
been  very  easy  to  inscribe  in  our  Constitution  that  famous 
formula  of  M.  de  Cavour,  “  a  free  Church  in  a  free  state.” 
None  of  us,  not  even  M.  de  Lamennais,  the  only  priest  who  sat 
on  our  committee,  and  who  certainly  was  second  to  none  in 
liberalism  and  in  political  daring,  proposed  this  separation. 
The  truth  is  that  it  is  much  easier  to  formulate  the  inde¬ 
pendence  of  the  two  powers  in  theory  than  to  realize  it,  es¬ 
pecially  when  it  is  a  question  of  placing  a  society  constituted 
as  ours,  where  all  is  divided,  individualized,  and  pulverized, 
over  against  the  powerful  organization  of  the  Catholic  clergy. 

In  other  words,  the  Republic  “  did  not  dare  ”  take  such 
a  step.  Accordingly  in  the  constitution  which  was  sub- 

1  Univers ,  June  3,  1848. 

1  Ere  nouvelle,  July  and  August,  passim. 

3  Opinion  du  Citoyen  Lamennais  contre  le  salaire  des  cultes  par  Vet  at 
(Paris,  1848),  (B.  N.  Lb54,  90). 

*  Mtmoires,  vol.  iv,  p.  12. 


65]  THE  catholics  AND  THE  REVOLUTION  65 

mitted  for  the  approval  of  the  Assembly  by  the  Commission, 
article  VII  promised  not  only  freedom  of  worship  but  also 
the  maintenance  of  the  budget  of  the  clergy.  “  Each  may 
freely  profess  his  religion  and  receive  from  the  state  an 
equal  protection  for  the  exercise  of  his  worship.  The 
ministers  of  the  cults  recognized  by  law  alone  have  a  right 
to  a  salary  from  the  state."  1 

The  Constituent  Assembly  was  little  more  inclined  than 
the  Constitutional  Commission  had  been  to  reject  the  state 
support  of  the  Church.2  Article  VII  of  the  proposed  con¬ 
stitution  was  discussed  in  the  Assembly  on  the  18th  of 
September,  when  several  amendments  to  the  proposed 
article  were  introduced.8  Pierre  Leroux  was  the  first  to 
oppose  the  article  as  it  had  been  drafted  by  the  Committee. 
While  maintaining  that  he  was  not  a  partisan  of  an  abso¬ 
lute  distinction  between  the  spiritual  and  the  temporal,  he 
nevertheless  felt  that  the  trend  of  the  times  was  towards  a 
separation  between  religion  and  politics.  He  would  there¬ 
fore  have  the  legislators  be  “  consistent  ”  with  themselves 
and  reduce  article  VII  to  a  simple  expression  of  religious 
liberty :  “  Each  may  freely  profess  his  religion  ”.4  An¬ 
other  speaker,  Citizen  Lavallee,  proposed  the  following 
amendment:  “  No  one  can  be  forced  to  contribute  towards 
the  expenses  of  any  cult.  The  Republic  will  subsidize 
none."  And  he  supported  his  amendment  with  the  conten¬ 
tion  that  the  then  existing  relations  between  Church  and 
state  tended  to  weaken  religion.  If  Judaism  and  Christ¬ 
ianity  figured  to  the  same  extent  in  the  budget  of  cults,  if 
the  state  thus  placed  on  the  same  level  two  religions  of 

1  Moniteur,  September  19,  1848. 

2  Cf.  Haureau  (M.  B.),  La  liberte  et  Vegalite  des  caltes  (Paris,  i8q8), 
p.  37 :  “  It  has  hardly  been  discussed ;  striking  proof  of  our  wisdom !  ” 

3  Moniteur,  September  19,  1848. 

4  Ibid. 


66  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [66 

which  the  one  was  the  negation  of  the  other,  would  this  not 
lead  to  incredulity?  But  in  spite  of  all  the  arguments  that 
could  be  mustered,  amongst  which  the  financial  one  did 
not  fail  to  appear,  the  amendments  were  one  by  one  re¬ 
jected,  and  article  VII  was  accepted  by  the  Constituent 
Assembly  as  it  shad  been  drafted  by  the  Commission.1  The 
Republic  thus  declared  in  its  Constitution  its  determina¬ 
tion  to  continue  the  state  support  of  the  Church. 

The  attempt  to  “  democratize  ”  the  Church,2  to  bring  its 
constitution  more  into  conformity  with  what  were  re¬ 
garded  as  republican  principles,  had  its  exponents  within 
the  Committee  on  Worship  as  well  as  in  the  Assembly  and 
in  the  clubs.  One  of  its  members  desired  some  change  in 
the  Church  in  order  to  “  safeguard  the  rights  of  the  state 
against  the  pretentions  and  the  encroachments  of  the 
clergy.”  3  Monseigneur  Parisis,  the  bishop  of  Langres, 
replied  that  the  Concordat  was  a  convention  agreed  upon 
by  two  powers,  the  state  and  the  Papacy,  and  that  there¬ 
fore  the  state  could  not  alter  it.  Citizen  Pradie  suggested 
that  the  concurrence  of  the  two  powers  would  be  necessary 
in  order  to  make  any  alterations  in  the  existing  relations. 

One  of  the  projects  thus  brought  forward  for  the  “  de¬ 
mocratization  ”  of  the  Church  dealt  with  the  mode  of  ap¬ 
pointment  of  bishops.  The  majority  of  the  Committee 
seemed  to  favor  their  nomination  by  means  of  election,  but 
they  differed  as  to  the  mode.  Some,  such  as  Citizen  Isam- 
bert,  believed  that  it  would  be  dangerous  to  leave  the  elec¬ 
tion  in  the  hands  of  a  single  class,  and  he  therefore  favored 
the  participation  of  the  faithful.4  Others,  such  as  Arnaud 
[de  l’Ariege]  and  the  three  bishops  who  sat  on  the  Com- 

1  Ibid. 

2  Archives  Nationales,  op.  cit.,  session,  November  9,  1848. 

3  Ibid.,  session  of  June  5,  1848. 

4  Ibid.,  session  of  June  22,  1848. 


THE  CATHOLICS  AND  THE  REVOLUTION 


mittee,  contended  that  election  should  be  in  the  power  of 
the  clergy  alone.  “  This  doctrine  ”,  said  Monseigneur 
Fayet  referring  to  Isambert's  proposal  to  introduce  a  lay 
element,  “  may  be  suitable  for  the  Jansenis'ts  and  the  Pro¬ 
testants,  but  it  is  not  Catholic  doctrine.  In  admitting  the 
principle  proposed  by  M.  Isambert  for  the  constitution  of 
the  Church,  we  shall  arrive  at  the  Civil  Constitution  of  the 
Clergy  ”.1  The  lay  element,  he  contended,  would  be1  suffic¬ 
iently  represented  by  the  chief  of  the  executive  who  would 
always  have  the  right  of  presentation.2  The  committee 
eventually  decided  3  that  the  election  of  bishops  should  be 
in  the  hands  of  an  electoral  body  composed  solely  of  eccle¬ 
siastics.  It  was  a  triumph  for  canon  law.4  The  article  of 
the  Concordat  that  conferred  on  the  First  Consul  the  right 
to  fill  vacant  sees  appeared  to  the  committee  no  longer  con- 


1  Archives  Nationales,  session  of  June  23,  1848. 

2  Ibid.,  session  of  August  3,  1848. 

3  Ibid.,  session  of  February  18,  1848. 

4  The  method  of  appointing  bishops  has  varied  from  time  to  time 
in  the  history  of  the  Catholic  Church.  Until  the  sixth  century,  they 
were  elected  by  both  the  clergy  and  the  people,  subject  to  the  approval 
of  the  neighboring  bishop.  (In  the  early  Middle  Ages  in  the  West,  the 
kings  of  Gaul  claimed  the  right  to  interfere  in  the  election  of  bishops, 
and  they  often  nominated  them  directly.  The  Second  Lateran  Council 
(1139)  empowered  the  chapter  of  the  Cathedral  Church  to  choose  the 
bishop.  The  Pope  also  maintained  the  right  to  make  appointments  to 
vacant  sees;  but  by  the  Concordat  of  1516  he  permitted  the  king  of 
France,  with  certain  reservations,  to  nominate  the  French  bishops. 
(The  Concordat  of  1516  is  given  in  Raccolta  di  concordati,  ed.  Mercati, 
pp.  233-251).  This  agreement  lasted  down  to  the  French  Revolution. 
The  Concordat  of  1801,  which  Napoleon  negotiated  with  the  Papacy, 
decreed  that  the  First  Consul  should  nominate  the  bishops  and  the  Pope 
should  confer  canonical  institution.  This  method  was  in  vogue  at  the 
beginning  of  the  Second  Republic  in  1848.  ( Cf .  Catholic  Encyclo¬ 
pedia,  arts.,  Bishop,  Investiture,  Concordat).  The  whole  trend  of  the 
development  was  thus  away  from  popular  election  such  as  the  radicals 
wished  to  introduce  into  the  Church.  {Cf.  Codex  juris  canonici,  ed. 
Gasparri  (New  York,  1918),  Can.  329  and  note  4.) 


68  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [68 

sistent  with  the  demands  of  the  republican  state,  under 
which  the  mode  of  election  had  much  greater  vogue  than 
under  the  monarchy.1  It  was  therefore  proposed  to  re¬ 
quest  the  government  to  open  negotiations  with  the  Holy 
See  for  the  purpose  of  making  a  new  Concordat.2 

Another  proposed  change  in  the  administration  of  the 
Church  was  that  the  vicars  in  charge  of  country  parishes 
should  have  permanent  appointments.  Unlike  the  cures  of 
the  cantons,  the  appointment  of  rural  vicars  was  not  sub¬ 
mitted  to  the  government  for  ratification.  They  therefore 
held  their  parishes  subject  to  the  pleasure  of  the  bishop.3 
This  situation  had  created  much  dissatisfaction,  as  the  rural 
vicars  thought  that  they  should  be  irremoveable  as  well  as 
the  cures;  and  some  of  them  petitioned  the  Committee  on 
Worship  to  this  effect.4  There  was  also  the  feeling  that 
this  condition  of  affairs  gave  the  Church  too  great  political 
power  over  the  rural  populations.  The  vicars,  by  reason 
of  the  fact  that  they  were  dependent  upon  the  bishops,  could 
be  made  instruments  to  thwart  the  plans  of  the  government. 
If  they  were  made  irremoveable,  could  they  not  act  more 
freely  and  independently?  So  argued  Citizen  Cenac,  a 
member  of  the  Committee  on  Worship.5 

But  the  “  irremoveability  of  vicars  ”  met  with  hostility 
outside  the  Committee  on  Worship  as  well  as  within.  “To 
desire  irremoveability,”  declared  the  Abbe  Bonnetat,  “  is 
to  introduce  into  the  Church  ....  that  spirit  of  independ- 

1  Archives  Nationales,  op.  cit.,  session  of  February  18,  1849.  It  was 
decided  that  the  electoral  body  should  nominate  three  candidates,  from 
amongst  which  the  head  of  the  state  should  appoint  the  bishop.  Cf. 
sessions  of  June  22,  23,  1848. 

2 Ibid.,  Pradie,  La  question  religieuse  (Paris,  1848),  p.  183. 

3  Archives  Nationales,  report  of  Pradie  on  petitions. 

4  Ibid .,  August  24,  1848. 

5  Pradie,  op.  cit.,  p.  160. 


69]  the  CATHOLICS  AND  THE  REVOLUTION  69 

ence  and  of  constitutionalism  which  is  shaking  modern 
society  to  its  very  foundations.”  1  Within  the  Committee 
Arnaud  [de  l’Ariege]  expressed  the  feeling  of  its  members 
when  he  declared  that  the  whole  question  revolved  around 
the  competence  of  the  civil  authority  in  such  a  matter. 
The  wrong  that  the  authors  of  the  Civil  Constitution  of 
the  Clergy  committed  was  that  they  sought  to  regulate  the 
relations  between  the  Church  and  the  state  without  con¬ 
sulting  the  Church.  “  The  proposition  which  is  before  us 
commits  the  same  wrong :  it  introduces  an  incompetent 
authority.  It  is  a  question  of  the  discipline  of  the  Church, 
in  which  the  civil  power  does  not  have  the  right  to  med¬ 
dle.”  2  The  majority,  following  the  lead  of  Monseigneur 
Fayet,  the  bishop  of  Orleans,  decided,  as  in  the  question  of 
the  election  of  bishops,  to  petition  the  government  to  dis¬ 
cuss  the  matter  with  the  Holy  See.3  In  the  opinion  of 
Citizen  Isambert  this  was  merely  an  indefinite  adjournment 
of  the  question,4  which  indeed  it  was.  The  Constituent  As¬ 
sembly  apparently  did  not  possess  sufficient  interest  in  the 
matter  to  discuss  the  reports  of  the  Committee  of  Worship.5 
And  Pius  IX  after  November  16,  1848,  was  “  disenchanted 
with  democracy  The  times  were  therefore  inopportune 
for  any  revision  of  the  Concordat  and  the  whole  question 
was  simply  dropped.6 

It  is  impossible,  therefore,  to  see  in  the  political 
relationships  between  the  Catholics  and  the  Revolution 
any  reason  why  they  should  not  have  maintained  after 
February  the  attitude  which  they  had  then  adopted,  or 

1  Bonnetat,  op.  cit.,  p.  13. 

2  Archives  Ncitionalcs,  op.  cit.,  session  of  January  22,  1849. 

3  Ibid.,  session  of  August  24,  1848. 

*  Ibid. 

5  Cf.  Moniteur,  February  27,  1849  and  March  24,  1849. 

6Pradie,  op.  cit.,  p.  183. 


>70  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [70 

why  the  ecclesiastical  leaders  should  'become  less  enthu¬ 
siastic  republicans.  The  Constituent  Assembly  was  favor¬ 
able  toward  the  Church.1  The  Committee  on  Worship 
was  largely  dominated  by  the  three  bishops,  of  Orleans, 
Langres  and  Digne.2  The  Constitution  of  the  Republic 
guaranteed  liberty  of  instruction  for  which  the  Catholics 
had  long  been  clamoring.3  As  the  Vicomte  de  Melun 
testified :  “  Everybody  else  has  the  right  to  complain  of 
the  Republic  except  religion.”  4  “  This  revolution  ”,  said 

de  Tocqueville,  “  which  appeared  destined  to  continue 
and  perhaps  surpass  the  work  of  1793,  has  restored  not  only 
to  religion,  but  to  the  clergy,  an  influence  a  thousand  times 
greater  than  the  Restoration,  which  actually  ruined  itself 
for  their  sake,  was  able  to  do.”  5 

Whe  adoption  of  article  vii  of  the  Constitution  indicates  this. 

2  This  is  the  impression  that  one  gets  from  reading  the  report  which 
is  in  the  Archives  Nationales.  The  bishops  swayed  the  committee  in 
every  instance. 

8  Cf.  infra,  chap.  vii. 

4  Baunard,  Vie  de  Melun  (Paris,  1880),  p.  202. 

5  Senior,  Correspondence  and  conversations  of  A.  de  Tocqueville  with 
N.  W.  Senior  (London,  1872),  vol.  i,  pp.  54  et  seq. 


CHAPTER  II 


The  Catholics  and  the  Social  Crisis  of  1848 

The  causes  of  the  social,  as  well  as  those  of  the  political 
revolution  of  1848,  have  their  roots  in  the  Revolution  of 
1789.  Amongst  the  institutions  of  the  Old  Regime  which 
that  great  upheaval  ruthlessly  overturned  was  the  economic 
constitution  of  France.  By  the  law  of  2-17  of  March,  1791, 
the  National  Constituent  Assembly  swept  away  the  Gilds, 
the  Corporations,  etc.,  which  ever  since  the  Middle  Ages 
had  regulated  the  economic  life  of  the  country.1  It  was  a 
great  reform  and  one  of  momentous  significance;  for  it 
gave  a  mighty  impulse  to  the  economic  development  of  the 
nineteenth  century.  But  it  also  had  its  deplorable  conse¬ 
quences.  Inspired  by  the  doctrine  of  the  Physiocrats, 
which  became  known  as  laisser-faire,  laisser-passer,  this 
law  freed  the  workman  as  well  as  the  master  from  all  re¬ 
strictions  and  left  the  way  open  for  the  individualistic  re¬ 
gime.  The  immediate  consequence  was,  on  the  one  hand, 
to  ruin  many  of  the  masters,  who  had  therefore  to  discharge 
their  journeymen,  often  becoming  workmen  themselves;2 
and  on  the  other,  to  lower  wages  and  vastly  increase  the 
amount  of  unemployment.  The  industrial  crisis  thus 
created  was  aggravated  by  the  movement  towards  the  towns 
of  that  part  of  the  rural  population  which  was  thrown  out 
of  work  by  the  ruin  and  dispersion  of  the  nobility  and 
clergy.3  In  order  to  protect  themselves  the  journeymen  of 

1  Quentin-Bauchart,  P.,  La  crise  social  de  1848  (Paris,  1920),  p.  1. 

2  Ibid.,  pp.  2  and  4. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  4. 

7  il 


7i 


y2  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [72 

Paris  began  to  form  associations  which  they  developed  to 
an  unprecedented  state  of  perfection.  From  April,  1791, 
on,  all  the  professions  saw  the  formation  of  associations 
having  rigid  rules  of  admission,  and  regulations  which  fixed 
wages  and  forbade  employment  under  conditions  other  than 
those  which  they  prescribed.1 

But  such  associations  were  intolerable  to  the  National 
Constituent  Assembly;  for  it  beheld  in  them  at  once  a 
form  of  reaction  towards  the  old  regime  with  all  its  re¬ 
strictions,  and  a  menace  to  the  recently-won  omnipotence 
of  the  state.  Moreover,  the  middle  classes,  greatly  favored 
by  the  substitution  of  competition  for  monopoly  and  re¬ 
striction,  became  alarmed  at  the  apparition  of  a  fourth 
estate,  which  they  beheld  increasing  in  power  and  influence 
by  means  of  organizations  and  associations  which  were 
extending  themselves  from  profession  to  profession,  and 
from  Paris  to  the  other  cities  of  France.2  For  this  reason, 
the  Constituent  Assembly  voted,  on  June  14,  1791,  without 
discussion,  the  Chapeiier  law — so-called  from  the  name  of 
its  formulator.  “  There  are  no  longer  any  corporations 
within  the  state  ”,  said  Chapeiier  proudly  in  his  report, 
“  there  is  no  longer  any  interest  but  that  of  each  part¬ 
icular  individual  and  the  general  interest.”  This  law  pro¬ 
hibited,  whenever  they  should  meet  together,  “  citizens  of 
the  same  rank  or  profession,  contractors,  merchants,  work¬ 
men  and  journeymen  of  any  craft  whatsoever,  from  electing 
a  president,  a  secretary,  trustees,  from  taking  minutes,  from 
deliberating  on,  or  passing  resolutions,  and  from  formulat¬ 
ing  rules  regarding  their  pretended  common  interests.”  3 
All  resolutions  and  agreements  tending  to  fix  the  price  of 
labor  were  declared  “  unconstitutional  and  derogatory  to 

1  Quentin-Bauchart,  op.  cit.,  pp.  4-5. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  5. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  6. 


THE  SOCIAL  CRISIS  OF  1848 


73 


73] 

liberty  and  to  the  Declaration  of  the  Rights  of  Man.”  Be¬ 
sides,  the  authors  of  such  resolutions  were  threatened  with 
a  fine  of  five  hundred  livres  and  with  the  forfeiture  of  the 
rights  of  citizenship  for  a  year.  And  finally  it  was  decreed 
that  “  all  tumultuous  assemblies  for  the  purpose  of  pro¬ 
testing  against  the  free  exercise  of  industry  and  commerce  ” 
should  be  considered  as  “  acts  of  sedition.”  1 

Such  in  short  was  the  policy  of  the  First  Republic  towards 
working-men’s  associations,  a  policy  which  was  continued 
and  reinforced  by  the  Consulate  and  the  Empire.  Extracts 
from  several  articles  of  the  Penal  Code  make  this  abund¬ 
antly  clear. 

No  association  of  more  than  twenty  persons  may  be  formed 
except  with  the  consent  of  the  government  and  under  condi¬ 
tions  which  it  may  please  the  public  authority  to  indicate.2 

1  Ibid.  “For  him  (Chapelier)  and  his  contemporaries,  republican 
heirs  of  a  conception  of  absolute  monarchy,  the  omnipotence  of  the 
state,  the  sole  link  binding  free  citizens,  appeared  the  political  and  so¬ 
cial  ideal.  Not  only  were  the  corporations  broken  up,  but  every  in¬ 
stitution  that  tended  to  interpose  itself  between  this  supreme  authority 
and  individuals  would  be  persecuted  and  destroyed  without  mercy.  Thus 
Chapelier  mistrusted  as  well  the  formation  of  bureaus  for  the  relief 
of  the  sick  and  the  unemployed,  considering  them  ‘  specious  designs  ’. 
‘  These  specific  distributions  of  relief  .  .  .  demand  the  frequent  associa¬ 
tion  of  individuals  of  the  same  profession,  the  election  of  trustees  and 
other  officers,  the  formulation  of  rules  and  the  exclusion  of  those  who 
do  not  submit  to  them.  It  is  thus  that  privileges  .  .  .  are  reborn.’  ” 
This  did  not  mean  that  the  unfortunate  were  to  be  abandoned.  “  It  is 
the  duty  of  the  nation,”  said  Chapelier,  “  it  is  the  duty  of  public  officials 
in  its  name,  to  furnish  work  to  those  who  have  need  of  it  for  their 
existence  and  relief  to  the  helpless.”  The  Constitution  of  1793  affirmed : 
“  Society  owes  subsistence  to  its  unfortunate  citizens,  either  in  procuring 
work  for  them,  or  in  assuring  means  of  existence  to  those  who  are  no 
longer  capable  of  work.”  It  was  this  duty  of  the  state  that  formed 
the  basis  of  the  socialism  of  the  forties.  Thus  the  Revolution  laid  the 
foundation  of  the  social  ills  of  the  nineteenth  century,  but  it  also  sug¬ 
gested  a  remedy  for  them. 

2  Article  291. 


74  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [74 

Any  coalition  on  the  part  of  workmen  ...  to  prohibit  work 
in  a  factory,  to  prevent  them  from  starting  work  before,  or 
remaining  at  work  after,  certain  hours,  and  in  general  tending 
to  suspend,  prevent,  or  increase  the  wages  of  labor,  if  there  has 
been  any  attempt  at,  or  beginning  of  execution,  will  be  pun¬ 
ished  with  imprisonment,  the  minimum  of  which  shall  be  one 
month,  the  maximum,  three.  The  leaders  or  promoters  will  be 
punished  with  imprisonment  varying  from  one  to  three  years.1 

Yet  this  legislation,  unfavorable  as  it  was  to  the  welfare 
of  the  working  man,  failed,  for  several  reasons,  to  effect 
him  immediately.  Under  ithe  Empire  the  scale  of  wages 
was  maintained  relatively  high  by  the  scarcity  of  labor 
[which  was  caused  by  the  conscription  of  the  best  youths 
of  the  country  for  the  wars  of  Napoleon]  as  well  as  by 
the  continued  demand  for  products  of  home  manufacture 
created  by  the  Continental  Blockade.2  Moreover,  this  reign 
of  industrial  prosperity  continued  under  the  Restoration, 
and,  with  the  exception  of  one  crisis  in  1818,  lasted  until 
1826.  The  labor  problem,  therefore,  during  these  years 
remained  in  the  background;  and  the  demand  for  associa¬ 
tions  and  protection  of  workmen  seemed  to  have  died  out.3 

But  even  during  this  period  the  way  was  prepared  for 
that  strife  which  was  to  disturb  the  latter  years  of  the 
Restoration  as  well  as  the  entire  period  of  the  July  Mon¬ 
archy.  For  it  was  during  these  years  [i.  e.  the  Restora¬ 
tion]  that  machinery  began  to  be  introduced  and  big  in¬ 
dustry  created  thereby.  It  was  during  this  period,  too,  that 
the  laisser-faire  doctrine  was  popularized  by  Jean-Baptiste 
Say,  so  that  it  became  the  accepted  economic  dogma  of  the 
middle  class.  Thus  the  stage  was  set  for  the  industrial 
prosperity  of  the  bourgeoisie,  with  all  the  attendant  evils  of 

Article  1 15.  Cited  from  Quentin-Bauchart,  op.  cit.,  p.  10. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  11. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  12. 


THE  SOCIAL  CRISIS  OF  1848 


75 


75] 

the  individualistic  regime,  on  the  one  hand,  and  on  the 
other  hand,  for  the  birth  of  socialism  with  its  hostility 
equally  bitter  and  uncompromising  towards  the  bourgeoisie 
and  their  political  economy.1 

It  was  during  the  reign  of  Louis  Philippe,  therefore, 
that  the  labor  problem  became  acute,  and  the  sway  of  com¬ 
petition  made  its  evils  felt  to  the  fullest  extent.  The  free 
play  of  competition,  the  lack  of  associations  of  any  sort  be¬ 
tween  laborers  [which  were  indeed  forbidden  by  law],  the 
absence  of  any  responsibility  on  the  part  of  the  employer 
towards  his  employees,  but  rather  his  interest  to  exploit 
them  as  much  as  possible,2  maintained  the  scale  of  wages 
so  low,  that  the  laborer  had  nothing  between  him  and  star¬ 
vation  but  wages,  which  oftentimes  scarcely  sufficed  for  his 
daily  needs.  Consequently  an  overproduction  of  goods, 
which  resulted  in  the  shutting  down  of  factories,3  threw 
multitudes  out  of  employment  and  left  them  with  no  means 

1  Jean-Baptiste  Say  published  his  Traitc  df economic  politique  in  1S03- 
1804.'  It  met  with  immediate  success]  but  a  second  edition  was  inter¬ 
dicted  by  Napoleon.  Consequently  a  new  edition  did  not  appear  until 
1814,  when  it  practically  became  the  Bible  of  the  bourgeoisie.  “  Based 
on  the  primordial  idea  of  the  existence  of  natural,  inevitable  laws,  of 
which  unrestricted  competition  alone  assures  the  free  play  at  the  same 
time  that  it  draws  from  it  the  maximum  of  advantages;  seeing  in  the 
individual  interest  the  sole  motive,  and  in  the  struggle  of  interests 
between  them  the  sole  source  of  progress,  it  unmercifully  proscribed 
everything  that  threatened  to  place  a  restriction  on  this  incessant  and 
beneficent  conflict;  consequently  it  refused  the  state  all  intervention  in 
the  economic  domain,  as  it  condemned  every  organization  capable  of 
injuring  the  free  play  of  supply  and  demand.  In  resume,  it  erected  in 
theory  the  state  of  affairs  created  by  the  suppression  of  the  corporations 
and  the  interdiction  of  new  associations.”  Quentin-Bauchart,  op.  cit., 
P-  13. 

2  The  bourgeoisie  both  in  theory  and  in  practice  opposed  the  interven¬ 
tion  of  the  state  in  economic  affairs. 

3  Overproduction  was  often  due  to  the  fact  that  goods  were  manu¬ 
factured  without  any  regard  as  to  the  amount  the  markets  could  stand, 
or  to  the  quantity  competitors  were  turning  out. 


76  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [76 

of  subsistence.  It  was  this  that  caused  the  insurrection  at 
Lyons  in  1831  and  again  in  1834,  when  the  starving  work¬ 
men  inscribed  on  their  banners :  “  To  live  by  working,  or 
die  fighting.” 

In  sharpest  contrast  with  the  condition  of  the  working 
man,  for  whom  a  livelihood  was  so  insecure,  there  was  the 
increasing  prosperity  and  riches  of  the  bourgeoisie,  the 
capitalist  class. 

By  a  cruel  mockery  [wrote  the  Vicomte  de  Melun  in  1848 — 
and  this  description  applies  to  the  preceding  years  as  well — ] 
poverty  is  the  most  prevalent  and  the  most  hideous  in  the  very 
localities  where  labor  has  wrought  the  greatest  marvels  and 
accumulated  the  greatest  wealth.  The  manufacturing  cities, 
the  great  centers  of  industry,  contain  caves  that  lack  light,  air 
and  space,  but  not  inhabitants.  In  these  hovels,  burrows  rather 
than  human  habitations,  vegetate,  suffer  and  die,  human  beings 
with  countenances  emaciated  and  wan,  with  mutilated  limbs, 
with  bent  backs  .  .  .  who,  in  order  to  obtain  a  morsel  of 
bread,  are  for  long  hours  without  repose  at  the  mercy  of  a 
pitiless  machine.1 

It  was  this  contrast  between  the  two  prominent  classes 
in  society,  the  bourgeoisie  with  their  increasing  wealth  and 
power,  and  the  proletariat  with  their  helpless  poverty  and 
deplorable  squalor,  that  caused  the  formulation  of  the  various 
socialistic  systems  that  came  into  prominence  in  1840  or 
thereabouts.  Men  such  as  Louis  Blanc,  Cabet  and  Proud¬ 
hon  began  to  ask  if  something  were  not  radically  wrong 
with  a  society  that  permitted  such  contrasts  to  exist,  par¬ 
ticularly  in  France  with  its  cherished  dogma  of  the  equality 
of  all  men;  and  therefore  they  wrought  out  systems  which 
were  calculated  to  build  society  upon  a  more  equitable  basis. 
What  matters  the  “  right  to  equality  ”,  asked  Louis  Blanc, 
“  if  man  lacks  the  power  to  obtain  it?  ”  And  he  added: 

1  Melun,  Vicomte  Arrnand  de,  Dc  V intervention  de  la  societe  pour 
prevenir  et  soulager  la  misere  (Paris,  1849),  p.  8. 


THE  SOCIAL  CRISIS  OF  1848 


77 


77] 

Right,  considered  in  an  abstract  manner,  is  the  mirage,  which, 
since  1789,  has  deluded  the  people.  Right  is  the  metaphysical 
and  defunct  protection  which  has  replaced  for  the  people  the 
actual  protection  that  is  due  them.  The  Right  pompously  and 
fruitlessly  proclaimed  in  the  charters  has  served  only  to  con¬ 
ceal  the  injustice  of  the  inauguration  of  the  individualistic 
regime  and  the  barbarity  of  the  abandonment  of  the  poor.  It 
is  because  liberty  has  been  defined  by  the  word  Right,  that 
one  has  come  to  call  free,  men  who  are  slaves  of  hunger,  slaves 
of  cold,  slaves  of  ignorance,  slaves  of  chance.  Say  it  then 
once  for  all :  liberty  consists,  not  only  in  the  right  accorded, 
but  in  the  power  given  to  man  to  exercise  it,  to  develop  his 
faculties  under  the  reign  of  justice  and  the  protection  of  the 
law.1 

But  how  was  the  condition  of  the  proletariat  to  be  im¬ 
proved?  The  answer  was,  by  the  state.  It  was  necessary 
to  apply  “  all  the  power  of  the  state  ”,  which  was  “  assuredly 
not  too  much  for  such  a  task.”  2 

The  state,  however,  was  under  the  control  of  the  bour¬ 
geoisie  who  were  strongly  entrenched  in  the  government, 
and  who  were  opposed  to  all  state  intervention.  The  power 
of  the  bourgeoisie,  therefore,  must  be  broken  by  political 
revolution.  But  political  revolution  once  achieved  was  to 
be  only  a  stepping  stone  to  a  social  revolution.  “  Without 
political  reform  ”,  said  Louis  Blanc,  “  no  social  reform  is 
possible;  for  if  the  second  is  the  end,  the  first  is  the  means.”  3 
In  the  last  resort  a  great  transformation  of  the  whole 
face  of  society  was  the  only  hope  of  the  proletariat.  “  A' 
social  revolution  ought  to  be  attempted  ”,  said  the  same 
writer,  “  because  the  existing  social  order  is  too  filled  with 
iniquity,  with  poverty,  with  baseness  to  exist  long ;  ”  and 
“  because  there  is  no  one,  whatever  may  be  his  position, 

1  Blanc,  Louis,  Organisation  du  travail  (Paris,  1848),  p.  19. 

3  Ibid.,  edition  of  1840,  p.  96.  3  Ibid.,  p.  96. 


yg  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [yg 

his  rank,  his  fortune,  who  may  not  have  an  interest  in  the 
inauguration  of  a  new  social  order.”  1  “  1789  began  the 

domination  of  the  bourgeoisie,  1830  continued  it”;2  the 
next  revolution,  therefore,  should  be  for  the  advantage  of 
the  people. 

Before  the  country  was  ripe  for  revolution,  however,  the 
people  must  be  prepared  for  it;  and  this  could  be  accom¬ 
plished  only  by  a  general  diffusion  of  the  leading  prin¬ 
ciples  of  socialism.  Consequently  the  years  between  1840 
and  1848  were  characterized  by  a  vigorous  propaganda  for 
the  spread  of  the  teachings  of  the  socialists,  and  for  the 
awakening  of  the  working  classes  to  a  sense  of  their  op¬ 
portunity  as  well  as  of  their  needs.  Newspapers,  brochures, 
pamphlets,  literature,  histories  of  the  Revolution,  all  lent 
themselves,  in  greater  or  less  degree,  consciously  or  uncon¬ 
sciously,  to  the  dissemination  of  socialistic  ideas.3  More- 

1  Blanc,  Louis,  op.  cit.,  ed.  1840,  pp.  129-130. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  79. 

3  Amongst  newspapers  should  be  mentioned  le  Courier  frangais  which 
entitled  a  series  of  articles,  “  concerning  organization  of  labor  ” ;  the 
National,  in  which  Marrast  wrote  in  1844:  “  If  the  political  organization 
towards  which  we  aspire  does  not  have  the  effect  of  ameliorating  the 
condition  of  the  poorer  classes,  we  shall  cease  to  concern  ourselves  with 
politics.”  But  the  National  was  too  closely  wedded  to  the  orthodox 
economy,  and  therefore  the  more  advanced  of  the  Republican  party 
founded  the  lournal  du  Peuple  and  the  Reforme.  In  these  papers 
Flocon  popularized  the  idea  and  the  formula  of  Droit  au  travail, 
Pecqueur  and  Louis  Blanc,  those  of  Vorganisation  du  travail.  In  1845 
the  Reforme  wrote:  “All  men  are  brothers.  Where  equality  does  not 
exist,  liberty  is  only  a  lie.” 

Amongst  brochures  should  be  mentioned,  Louis  Blanc’s  Organi¬ 
sation  du  travail,  1840;  Cabet,  Voyage  en  Icarie,  1840;  Vrai  Christianisme 
suivant  lesus-Christ,  1846;  Pierre  Leroux,  De  Vhumanite ;  Lamennais, 
VEsquisse  d’une  philosophie,  1840;  Proudhon,  Qu’est-ce  quc  la  proprietef 
1840. 

In  literature  the  novels  of  George  Sand  propagated  similar  doctrines, 
notably,  Le  compagnon  du  tour  de  France,  2  vols.,  1840;  Le  meunier 
d’Angibault,  3  vols.,  1S45;  Le  peche  de  M.  Antoine,  2  vols.,  1847. 

Noteworthy  amongst  the  histories  that  lent  themselves  to  the  propa- 


THE  SOCIAL  CRISIS  OF  1848 


79 


79] 

over,  and  what  is  perhaps  of  equal  significance,  socialism 
presented  itself  to  the  people  under  the  guise  of  religion, 
often  posing  as  the  true  interpretation  of  Christianity.  It 
thus  not  only  made  its  appeal  to  the  material  needs  of 
humanity,  but  also  sought  to  root  itself  in  one  of  the  most 
deeply  seated  instincts  of  the  human  race.1  “  In  demand¬ 
ing  the  right  to  live  by  labor  ”,  said  Louis  Blanc,  “  one 
does  much  more  than  contend  for  the  rights  of  millions  of 
individuals  made  wretched  by  oppression  or  by  chance :  .  .  . 
one  salutes  the  Creator  in  his  work.”  2  “  What  is  social¬ 
ism  ”,  he  asked  elsewhere ;  and  answered,  “  It  is  the  Gospel 
in  action.”  3  Cabet  was  even  more  emphatic  in  his  asso¬ 
ciation  of  socialism  with  Christianity.  He  wrote  a  book 
entitled  True  Christianity  according  to  Jesus  Christ ,  in 
which  he  sought  to  show  that  the  Gospel  proclaimed  by 
Jesus  was  nothing  but  communism. 

Yes,  Jesus  Christ  is  a  Communist! ! !  [he  exclaimed].  We  add 
moreover,  that  according  to  Jesus,  the  Apostles  and  the  Fathers 
of  the  Church,  Christianity  is  unable  to  exist  without  commun¬ 
ism,  and  no  one  can  say  he  is  a  Christian  if  he  is  not  a  com¬ 
munist.  And  conversely,  communism  is  nothing  else  than  true 
Christianity.4 

ganda  of  socialistic  ideas  are:  Cabet,  Histoire  populaire  de  la  Revolu¬ 
tion  frangaise,  in  which  the  articles  of  Marat,  and  the  discourses  of 
Robespierre  were  most  prominent;  Lamartine,  Histoire  des  Girondins, 
1847;  Louis  Blanc,  Histoire  de  la  Revolution  and  Histoire  de  dix  ans 
1841-1844. 

1  The  Univers  speaks  of  Cabet,  Louis  Blanc,  et  al.,  as  men  who  dis¬ 
guise  criminal  ambitions  under  some  words  borrowed  from  the  Gospel, 
Univers,  August  17,  1848. 

2  Louis  Blanc,  op.  cit.,  ed.  1848,  p.  4. 

3  Quentin-Bauchart,  op.  cit.,  p.  92. 

4 Cabet,  Vrai  christianisme  suivant  Jes-us-Christ  (Paris,  1847),  pp.  620 
et  seq.  The  socialists  were  right  is  associating  Christianity  with  their 
endeavor  to  alleviate  the  sufferings  of  the  working  classes;  but  they 
were  wrong  in  identifying  it  with  the  ephemeral  systems  which  they 
sought  to  establish. 


go  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [80 

That  this  propaganda  was  effective  the  events  that  fol¬ 
lowed  the  24th  of  February,  1848,  are  sufficient  evidence. 
The  testimony  of  Proudhon  in  the  Assembly  was  to  the 
same  effect. 

Socialism  [he  said]  has  made  the  Revolution  of  February; 
your  parliamentary  quarrels  have  not  disturbed  the  masses. 
Socialism  has  figured  in  all  the  acts  of  the  Revolution :  March 
17,  April  16,  May  15.  Socialism  sat  at  the  Luxembourg,  while 
politics  were  being  discussed  at  the  Hotel-de-ville.  The  Na¬ 
tional  workshops  were  a  caricature  of  socialism ;  but  as  they 
have  not  been  its  work,  they  have  not  dishonored  it.  Socialism 
has  served  as  the  banner  of  the  last  insurrection;  those  who 
prepared  it,  and  those  who  exploited  it,  had  need  to  enlist  the 
laborer  in  this  great  cause.1 

Louis  Veuillot,  the  editor  of  the  Univers,  testified  that  it  was 
the  most  industrious  and  upright  as  well  as  the  better 
educated  class  of  the  proletariat  who1  had  become  the  ad¬ 
herents  of  Cabet  and  his  doctrines.2 

In  short  the  mind  of  the  working  class  on  the  eve  of 
February  seems  quite  generally  to  have  been  prepared  for, 
and  expectant  of,  a  revolution  that  should  cut  deeper  into 
society  than  a  mere  overturning  of  the  political  power. 

What  do  you  wish?  [asked  a  friend  of  Montalembert  of  a 
carriage  builder  whom  he  had  assisted  in  establishing  himself]. 
We  wish  to  enjoy  all  the  benefits  that  you  enjoy  [was  the 
reply].  We  wish  that  there  should  be  no  people  better  clothed, 
better  housed,  or  more  comfortable,  than  others.  .  .  .  Look, 
do  you  see  those  “swell”  ladies  who  pass  by?  They  have 
beautiful  cloaks,  fine  coats  and  dresses ;  our  wives  have  none 
of  them.  .  .  .  Ah  well!  that  insults  us,  that  is  unjust;  it  is 
necessary  that  there  be  an  end  to  it.3 

1  Univers,  August  2,  1848. 

2  Ibid.,  August  1 7,  1848. 

3  Lecanuet,  Montalembert,  vol.  ii,  pp.  402-403.  “  Whoever  took  the 


THE  SOCIAL  CRISIS  OF  1848 


8l 


8 1  ] 

Moreover  the  socialists  were  quite  convinced  that  their 
systems  were  the  oftiy  hope  of  the  new  society.  Cabet 
stated  in  a  letter  to  the  provisional  government  that  he  was 
prepared  to  suffer  martyrdom  to  sustain  before  the  op¬ 
position  of  all  men  that  Icarian  Communism  was  the  doc¬ 
trine  most  capable  of  ushering  in  the  happiness  of  the  people 
and  of  all  humanity.1  And  Louis  Blanc,  who  had  taken 
the  Oath  of  Hannibal  against  the  then  constitution  of 
society,  was  not  less  certain  that  his  scheme  for  the  organ¬ 
ization  of  labor  was  the  sole  means  of  salvaging  society. 
Well  might  the  Abbe  Maret  exclaim:  “  Under  the  name  of 
democracy,  what  strange  pretensions  assert  themselves  and 
claim  likewise  the  honors  of  triumph!  There  is  no  system 
whatsoever,  eclectic,  rationalistic,  socialistic,  which  does  not 
believe  that  its  opportunity  has  arrived,  and  which  does 
not  prepare  for  action,  to  fashion  France  according  to  its 
image/’  2 


trouble  to  enter  the  factories,  to  glance  over  the  books  that  were  read 
there,  to  take  account  of  the  enormous  and  very  significant  number 
of  brochures,  of  pamphlets,  of  almanachs,  that  the  people  bought  and 
devoured,  writings  filled  exclusively  with  social  theories  on  the  rights 
of  the  working  man,  with  complaints  over  his  condition,  with  bitter 
accusations  against  the  rich  and  the  capitalists,  could  easily  perceive  that 
the  danger  was  not  in  these  intestine  quarrels  of  the  middle  class  over 
political  reforms  more  or  less  extended,  which  it  sought  and  which  then 
absorbed  all  the  attention  of  the  government,  but  in  those  false  ideas 
of  absolute  equality,  in  those  envious  feelings  which  brewed  and  fer¬ 
mented  amongst  the  working  classes.  Both  government  and  opposition 
have  been  deceived  therein,  and  have  committed  the  mistake  of  seeing 
society  only  in  this  restricted  sphere  where  the  political  life  was  agitated. 
Thus  the  catastrophe  of  1848  has  been  at  once  a  surprise  and  a  revela¬ 
tion.”  “Let  us  add  that  the  republicans  themselves  did  not  suspect 
the  condition  of  the  minds  of  the  people.  If  they  had  known  it,  they 
would  have  been  much  more  unpardonable  still  for  having  knowingly 
destroyed  the  dam  that  confined  this  torrent  of  anti-social  passions.” 
Barrot,  Odilon,  Memoires,  vol.  ii,  pp.  5-6. 

1  April  17,  1848. 

7  kre  nouvelle,  April  19,  1848. 


82  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [82 

Now  what  was  the  attitude  of  Catholicism  towards  some 
change  in  the  constitution  of  society  that  would  improve 
the  condition  of  the  working  classes?  Not  only  were  there 
many  within  the  Church  who  had  for  some  years  been 
actively  engaged  in  social  work,  but  there  was  a  widespread 
recognition  of  the  crisis  and  the  feeling  that  the  Church 
as  well  as  the  Republic  must  do  something  to  alleviate  the 
sufferings  of  the  proletariat. 

Behind  the  political  there  is  a  social  revolution  [wrote 
Ozanaml  :  behind  the  question  of  the  Republic,  which  interests 
only  the  literate,  and  them  little,  there  are  the  questions  that  in¬ 
terest  the  people,  for  which  they  are  armed,  the  questions  of 
organization  of  labor,  of  repose,  of  wages.  It  is  a  mistake  to 
suppose  that  these  problems  can  be  avoided.  If  any  one  thinks 
that  the  people  can  be  satisfied  by  giving  them  primary  as¬ 
semblies,  legislative  councils,  new  magistrates,  consuls,  a  presi¬ 
dent,  he  is  greatly  deceived.1 

Feugueray,  in  the  Revue  Nationale,  emphasized  the  same 
idea.  Political  reform  occupied  only  a  secondary  place. 
“  What  indeed  would  be  the  use  of  political  reform  if  it 
were  not  the  instrument  of  social  reform?  ”  2  Scarcely  less 
emphatic  was  Louis  Veuillot. 

The  various  regimes  that  have  preceded  the  Republic  [he  said] 
have  concerned  themselves  with  the  proletariat  only  to  restrict 
their  rights  for  the  sake  of  the  industrial  bourgeoisie.  Great 
reforms  should  be  instituted  to  break  these  fetters.  .  .  .  The 
laborer  has  conquered  his  political  and  industrial  independ¬ 
ence.  He  has  a  right  to  institutions  which  shall  guarantee  it 
and  make  it  effective  for  all.3 

1  Ozanam,  Lettres,  vol.  ii,  p.  196. 

2  Revue  nationale,  April,  1848.  “  The  Revolution  of  1848  ought  to  do 
for  the  masses  what  that  of  ’89  has  done  for  the  bourgeoisie;  otherwise 
it  will  be  still  a  deception.”  Revue  nationale,  April  13,  1848. 

8  Univers,  April  6,  1848. 


THE  SOCIAL  CRISIS  OF  1848 


Even  as  late  as  August,  1848,  after  the  June  days  had  dis¬ 
pelled  so  many  illusions,  he  wrote:  “  It  is  a  truth  as  clear  as 
sunlight  ....  society  ought  to  find  some  other  means  for 
providing  for  the  support  of  the  indigent  classes,  to  which 
their  labor  does  not  furnish  sufficient  resources.”  1  The 
attitude  of  Montalembert  was  similar. 


The  working  classes  [he  said]  have  in  our  day  conquered 
the  first  place  in  the  preoccupations  of  all  political  minds,  of 
all  good  citizens.  Like  all  the  influential  they  have  their  cour¬ 
tiers  and  flatterers,  who  think  only  of  making  use  of  their 
power  in  catering  to  their  passions.  As  for  me,  I  wish  only 
to  serve,  not  to  flatter  them.  I  shall  study  with  respect  their 
needs  and  their  rights.  I  am  ready  to  make  all  the  sacrifices 
necessary  to  assist  the  one  and  maintain  the  other.2 

The  Vicomte  de  Melun,  who  perhaps  more  than  the  most 
of  his  day  had  the  welfare  of  the  proletariat  at  heart,  was 
likewise  alive  to  the  opportunity  that  the  new  Republic 
presented  for  social  amelioration,  and  perceived  that  it  must 
concern  itself  with  solving  the  social  problem.  In  his  open¬ 
ing  address  before  the  Societe  d’  Economic  Charitable  on 
the  5th  of  March,  1848,  he  said:  “  The  dream  of  some  has 
become  the  reveille  of  all,  and  the  questions  that  one  hardly 
perceived  on  the  distant  horizon  ....  have  come  to  con¬ 
front  us,  and  clamor  to-day  for  immediate  attention  and 
a  positive  solution.”  3  In  his  memoirs,  written  towards 
the  close  of  the  century,  he  referred  to  the  situation  in  1848, 
and  made  much  of  the  opportunity  that  the  Revolution  pre¬ 
sented  for  social  reconstruction. 


From  the  point  of  view  of  the  study  and  of  the  solution  of 

1  His  attitude,  however,  could,  at  the  same  time,  be  quite  different. 
Cf.  infra,  chap.  iii. 

2  Ere  nouvelle,  May  24,  1848. 

3  Annales  de  la  charite,  1848,  p.  65. 


S4  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [84 

social  questions,  which  we  had  prosecuted  during  the  reign  of 
Louis-Philippe,  and  which  had  obtained  only  with  great  diffi¬ 
culty,  and  at  the  last  moment,  the  attention  of  the  government 
of  July,  the  Revolution  of  1848  appeared,  at  the  first  sight,  a 
real  progress.  Men  were  at  last  going  to  concern  themselves 
with  what  appeared  tp  us  as  the  principal  and  dominant  aim  of 
politics,  namely,  with  the  amelioration  of  the  condition  of  the 
people  become  sovereign ;  with  the  best  means,  if  not  of  causing 
it  to  disappear,  at  least  of  diminishing  suffering  and  want. 
The  way  was  opened  for  all  the  investigations  of  science  and 
of  charity ;  a  hearing  was  given  to  every  idea  and  to  every 
system;  accordingly  Christianity  was  to  have  the  opportunity 
to  give  its  advice,  to  present  its  solution.  And  already  amongst 
the  republicans  of  the  Veille,  a  society  was  formed  consisting 
of  men  of  science  and  of  ability,  who  took  the  Gospel  for  their 
flag  and  Catholicism  for  their  political  and  social  doctrine.1 

Nor  were  the  clergy  behind  publicists,  philanthropists  and 
men  of  science  within  the  Church  in  the  recognition  of  the 
need  of  the  time.  The  bishop  of  Digne  in  his  mandate  of 
the  15th  of  March,  1848,  stated  that  the  “  amelioration  of 
the  condition  of  the  working  classes  according  to  the  spirit 
of  love  found  in  the  Gospel  ”  was  one  of  the  principles  to 
which  every  candidate  should  subscribe  if  he  wished  the 
support  of  the  clergy.2  Defending  himself  against  the  ac¬ 
cusation  that  he  would  not  condescend  to  attend  a  meeting 
of  the  local  workingmen’s  committee,  he  replied  that  no 
consideration  could  keep  him  away:  “  My  place  is  every¬ 
where  where  my  brothers  and  children  are.  Do  they  not 
know  that  we  are  the  descendants  of  the  laborers  who  civil¬ 
ized  the  world,  the  successors  of  the  Apostles,  poor  boat¬ 
men,  fishermen,  tentmakens,  and  cobblers?  .  .  3  “  De¬ 

mocracy  ”,  wrote  the  Abbe  de  Salinis,  “  that  is  to  say,  the 

1  Melun,  Armand  de,  Memoires  (Paris,  1891),  vol.  i,  pp.  260  et  seq. 

*  Univcrs,  March  24,  1848. 

3  Ibid.,  April  17. 


THE  SOCIAL  CRISIS  OF  1848 


emancipation  of  the  oppressed  classes,  their  progressive 
initiation  into  political  and  civil  life,  is  the  movement  im¬ 
planted  in  the  world  by  the  Gospel.”  1  And  one  reason  why 
so  many  of  the  clergy  offered  themselves  as  candidates  at 
the  elections  of  April,  1848,  was  because  they  felt  that  the 
Church  should  lend  its  voice  and  its  aid  towards  the  solu¬ 
tion  of  the  great  problems  that  confronted  the  young  Re¬ 
public,  not  the  least  of  which  was  the  question  of  doing 
justice  to  the  proletariat.2 

But  it  was  more  particularly  within  the  circle  of  a  small 
group  of  Liberal  Catholics,  laymen  as  well  as  clerics,  that 
the  first  step  was  to  be  taken  towards  the  reconstruction  of 
a  new  social  order.  This  was  the  foundation  of  the  paper, 
the  Ere  Nouvelle,  the  very  title  of  which  revealed  the  ex¬ 
pectations  of  the  founders.  The  most  distinguished' 
amongst  them  were:  Lacordaire,  celebrated  for  his  Confer- 
ences  at  Notre-Dame  and  well  known  for  his  liberalism  as 
well  as  for  his  interest  in  the  working  classes;  the  Abbe 
Maret,  a  theologian  of  distinction,  who  also  professed  a 
keen  interest  in  social  work;  Frederic  Ozanam,  historian, 
apologist,  professor  of  literature  at  the  Sorbonne,  who  com¬ 
bined  with  an  exemplary  Christian  character  a  profound 
desire  to  relieve  the  suffering  of  the  masses,  and  finally, 
Charles  de  Coux,  an  economist,  who  owed  his  conversion 
to  Catholicism  to  the  social  implications  which  he  saw  in 
its  doctrines.  With  a  staff  possessing  such  tendencies  it 


1  Abbe  de  Salinis  to  the  Archbishop  of  Bordeaux,  April  5,  1848.  Cited 
from  Foisset,  Vie  de  Lacordaire ,  vol.  ii,  p.  474. 

1  Ibid.  The  widespread  sympathy  that  was  felt  by  many  of  the  clergy, 
more  especially  the  lower  clergy,  with  the  tre  nouvelle  and  its  doctrines, 
reveals  that  there  was  a  considerable  party  within  the  Church  of  this 
way  of  thinking.  Cf.  Bazin,  op.  cit.,  vol..  i,  chap,  xxiii;  and)  the  Ere 
nouvelle,  February  19  and  20,  1849.  One  of  these  testimonials  stated 
that  the  only  way  of  safety  for  France  was  in*  “  the  alliance  of  Chris¬ 
tianity  and  Democracy.*  Its  author  was  a  professor  in  a  seminary. 


86  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [86 

is  not  difficult  to  understand  the  direction  that  their  paper 
would  take. 

According  to  the  Abbe  Maret  the  existing  Parti  Catho- 
lique  had  not  shown  itself  sufficiently  considerate  of  the 
condition  of  the  working  classes.1  The  Univers,  the 
great  representative  of  this  party,  did  not,  therefore,  suf¬ 
fice.  “We  wish  to  found  a  new  paper  ”,  wrote  Ozanam, 
“  for  a  time  quite  new.”  2  “  The  Gospel  has  disregarded 

nothing,  forgotten  nothing  that  touches  man  ”,  wrote  the 
editors  in  their  prospectus.3 

We  behold  with  sorrow  the  moral  and  bodily  afflictions  of  so 
many  of  our  brothers,  who  here  below  bear  the  heaviest  part 
of  common  toil,  a  part  made  more  burdensome  by  the  very 
development  of  industry  and  civilization.  We  do  not  believe 
these  evils  without  remedy;  and  if  patience  is  enjoined  for 
everybody,  charity  combined  with  science  can  accomplish  some¬ 
thing  to  stay  the  scourge,  if  not  to  destroy  it  entirely.  ...  We 
expect,  we  ought  to  expect,  that  the  Republic  will  use  its  power 
towards  the  alleviation  of  the  woes  of  the  greatest  number  of 
its  children. 

Repeatedly  the  Ere  Nouvelle  emphasized  the  same  need 
and  duty  of  the  Republic.4  After  the  elections  had  taken 
place,  and  the  new  Assembly  had  met,  it  urged  the  re¬ 
presentatives  of  France  to  devote  themselves  to  the  solu¬ 
tion  of  this  problem,  which  was  uppermost  in  the  minds 
of  the  people.  “  Without  doubt  ”,  it  wrote,  “  it  is  neces¬ 
sary  for  us  to  have  a  constitution,  but  the  obtaining  of  the 

1  Bazin,  op.  cit.,  vol.  i,  p.  225. 

2  Lettres,  vol.  ii,  p.  208,  Letter  of  April  12.  The  first  number  of  this 
paper  appeared  on  April  15,  1848. 

3  This  prospectus  is  found  in  vol.  i  of  the  kre  nouvelle  in  the 
Bibliotheque  Nationale.  It  is  also  printed  in  Bazin,  op.  cit.,  vol.  i, 
pp.  228-232. 

4  Cf.  kre  nouvelle,  May  8,  18,  19,  1848. 


THE  SOCIAL  CRISIS  OF  1848 


daily  bread  is  a  more  pressing  need  still,  and  the  National 
Assembly  should  not  deceive  itself  on  that  score.”  1  It 
suggested  that  if  the  fruits  of  labor  had  been  more  equit¬ 
ably  divided  in  the  past,  and  if  means  of  livelihood  had 
been  assured  to  the  laborers,  the  July  Monarchy  might  still 
have  been  standing.  Let  the  Republic  therefore  heed  this 
warning.  If  it  should  prove  itself  as  powerless  as  that 
Monarchy  to  resolve  this  problem  and  to  satisfy  the  legiti¬ 
mate  needs  of  the  people,  it  would  discover  that  it  had  been 
only  the  “  preface  to  a  frightful  anarchy.”  2  The  most  im¬ 
portant  task  that  confronted  the  National  Assembly  was  so 
to  “  modify  the  economic  constitution  of  France  ”  that  it 
would  preserve  all  the  advantages  which  the  past  had  pre¬ 
sented,  guard  against  new  and  greater  dangers,  and  at  the 
same  time  correct  all  the  injustices  and  abuses  that  now 
clamored  for  redress.  The  Ere  Nouvelle  recognized  that 
this  was  no  light  task;  it  was  not  astonished  that  these 
problems  “  caused  to  grow  pale  the  men  who  knew  no  other 
care  than  their  own  repose,  the  tardy  followers  of  Malthus 
and  Bentham.”  But  it  pledged  its  support  in  the  attempt 
of  the  Republic  to  give  a  “  striking  satisfaction  to  the  feel- 


1  Ere  nouvelle,  May  16,  1848.  “Men  of  the  old  middle  classes,  see 
that  your  representatives  do  not  lose  sight  for  one  instant  of  the  pur¬ 
pose  of  the  democratic  republic,  and  that  they  earnestly  seek  in¬ 
stitutions  of  fraternity.”  Revue  Nationale,  May  4,  1848.  The  Revue 
Nationale  was  the  organ  of  Buchez,  who'  had  entered  political  life 
under  the  Restoration  through  Carbonarism.  For  a  time  he  belonged 
to  the  school  of  Saint-Simon.  But  by  1837  he  had  forsaken  Saint- 
Simonianism  for  Catholicism.  /He  did  much  to  popularize  the  idea 
of  the  alliance  of  the  Revolution  with  Christianity.  His  creed  may 
be  summed  up  in  the  phrase,  “  Social  realization  of  Christianity.”  For 
a  time  he  was  President  of  the  Constituent  Assembly.  Cf.  Revue 
Nationale,  April  20,  1848,  Castella,  G.,  Buchez  (Paris*,  1911),  Calippe, 
C.,  L’ attitude  sociale  des  catholiques  frangais  au  xix%  siecle  (Paris, 
1911),  vol.  i. 

*  Ere  nouvelle,  May  16,  1848. 


88  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [88 

ing  of  fraternity,  that  Christian  form  of  patriotism,  without 
which  Equality  and  Liberty  would  speedily  disappear  from 
the  soil  of  France.”  Moreover  the  editors  promised  to 
study  the  questions  that  were  uppermost  in  men’s  minds,  to 
examine  the  various  systems  that  had  been  proposed  by 
the  socialists,  to  the  end  that  they  might  help  to  usher  in 
the  new  era. 

This  group  of  Social  Catholics  went  further  still.  They 
proposed  to  found,  under  the  patronage  of  the  Ere  Nouvelle, 
a  school  of  Social  Catholicism. 

One  of  the  greatest  faults  of  the  Catholics  of  our  time  [they 
affirmed]  is  the  indifference  which  they  show  towards  the 
economic  and  social  works  that  are  now  agitating  and  inflam¬ 
ing  the  most  vehement  and  most  numerous  class  of  society. 
One  great  fact,  however,  should  open  their  eyes  for  the  future. 
For  half  a  century  political  passions  have  detached  more 
branches  from  the  sacred  trunk  than  ever  any  heresy  has  done; 
to-day  another  order  of  tendencies  is  developing  in  the  public 
mind.  .  .  .  We  behold  with  some  uneasiness  infidel  writers 
noisily  take  possession  of  the  social  scepter,  while  religious 
writers  do  not  seem  to  perceive  the  capital  importance  of  these 
questions  in  our  time,  or  else  they  march  in  this  direction  only 
with  a  timid  step.  The  result  is  that  this  science,  perfectly 
Christian  in  its  design,  has  been  founded  by  infidelity.  This 
is  not  a  reason  why  we  should  abandon  it  to  our  enemies,  who 
forge  out  of  it  a  powerful  weapon  with  which  to  slander  the 
Catholic  idea,  to  represent  it  as  hostile  to  the  happiness  of  the 
suffering  classes,  and  thus  to  kindle  hatred  as  blind  as  deplor¬ 
able.  It  is  therefore  urgent  that  we  ourselves  should  also  form 
a  social  school  since  the  wind  of  the  century  blows  towards 
socialism.  All  the  goodness,  the  truth,  the  justice  that  there 
is  in  the  economic  and  socialistic  productions  will  be  gathered 
in  the  one  center,  and  there  all  works  of  this  kind  will  be 
analyzed  and  judged  carefully  and  impartially;  there  will  be 
assembled  all  the  minds  who  feel  attracted  by  these  studies, 


THE  SOCIAL  CRISIS  OF  1848 


and,  by  shielding  themselves  against  errors,  by  having  recourse 
to  the  examination  of  the  Church,  there  will  be  built  up  an 
imposing  body  of  doctrine;  and  thus  the  pseudo-socialists  will 
be  deprived  of  the  influence  that  they  exert  over  numerous 
classes  and  the  generous  youth.  That  alone  can  be  counted  on 
to  bring  them  back  into  the  fold  of  religion,  where  the  true 
unity,  the  Christian  fraternity,  will  be  found.  We  adjure 
then  the  Catholic  economists,  the  members  of  the  charitable 
societies,  to  collaborate  in  forming  a  committee  where  Chris¬ 
tian  economics  and  Christian  socialism  shall  be  able  to  compete 
with  the  heterodox  sects,  and  to  snatch  away  from  them  the 
dangerous  power  that  they  have  built  up  by  their  active 
propaganda.1 


The  group  of  Catholics  that  centered  in  the  Revue 
Nationale  likewise  claimed  to  ibe  a  “  school  of  Christian 
socialism 


We  seek  the  social  realization  of  Christianity  [affirmed  Feu- 
gueray],2 3  that  is  why  and  how  we  are  socialists.  .  .  .  Without 
doubt  we  are  not  socialistic  according  to  the  fashion  of  M. 
Cabet,  M.  Louis  Blanc,  M.  de  Considerant.  We  do  not  wish 
to  suppress  property,  which  is  an  essential  condition  of  human 
liberty;  we  do  not  wish  a  monopoly  of  every  industry  placed 
within  the  hands  of  the  government;  we  do  not  entangle  the 
wholesome  idea  of  association  with  the  chimeras  of  Fourier¬ 
ism.  But  we  are  not  the  less  socialists,  and  we  claim  this  title 
with  some  pride ;  for  socialism  at  bottom,  in  its  disposition,  or 
rather  in  the  sentiment  from  which  it  emanates,  is  nothing  less 
than  charity  applied  to  the  economic  and  civil  order.a 

1  Bazin,  op.  cit.,  vol.  i,  pp.  294-295. 

JFeugueray  was  a  disciple  of  Buchez  and  collaborated  with  him,  in 
the  editorship  of  the  Revue  Nationale.  After  the  withdrawal  of  this 
paper  in  July,  1848,  he  became  one  of  the  editors  of  the  Ere  nouvelle. 
Cf.  Ere  nouvelle,  April  5,  1848. 

3  Revue  nationale,  April  20,  1848. 


g0  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [go 

Finally  the  Ere  Nouvelle  proposed  to  afford  a  Catholic, 
a  Christian  solution  to  the  social  problem.  Therefore  they 
occupied  more  or  less  the  position  of  mediators.  While 
contending  for  the  welfare  and  happiness  of  the  laboring 
class,  so  numerous  in  society,  they  frankly  avowed  that 
they  did  not  think  that  this  involved  “  the  ruin  of  the  other 
classes.”  1 

What  had  we  done  if  the  24th  of  February,  1848,  had  not 
found  us  Christian?  We  confess  frankly,  we  should  have 
seen  before  us  only  two  issues:  the  spoliation  and  the  exter¬ 
mination  of  the  bourgeoisie,  or  else  the  reestablishment  of  the 
people  in  that  slavery  from  which  Christianity  has  drawn  them. 
We  should  have  been  either  fanatical  democrats  or  impious 
conservatives.  But  we  were  Christian.  .  .  .  What  had  the 
Christians  to  do  ?  Evidently  comport  themselves  as  mediators 
between  the  two  parties.  Trustees  of  the  doctrine  that  has 
reconciled  all  things  in  heaven  and  in  earth  .  .  .  they  should 
remain  above  both  camps.  Sympathizing  with  their  afflictions, 
correcting  their  errors,  they  should  respect  the  victory  of  the 
people  and  not  take  advantage  of  the  dangers  of  the  bour¬ 
geoisie.  Hostile  to  the  one  or  the  other,  they  would  have 
abdicated  their  influence.2 

But  it  was  not  merely  the  need  of  reconciling  two  classes 
that  were  hostile  to  each  other,  which  constituted  the  social 
problem:  it  was  also  a  question  of  reconciling  Catholicism 
with  democracy.  “  We  are  of  our  time  ”,  affirmed  the 
editors  proudly;  “  we  accept  it  with  its  general  instincts,  its 
liberal  tendencies,  its  democratic  institutions.”  3  The  great 
need  of  the  hour  was  conciliation,  “  conciliation  of  religion 
with  liberty,  conciliation  of  Catholicism  with  democracy, 

1  Arc  nouvelle,  May  16,  1848. 

2  Ibid.,  September  1,  1848. 

3  Ibid.,  July  22,  1848. 


9i ]  THE  SOCIAL  CRISIS  OF  1848  g1 

conciliation  of  faith  with  science.”  1  Without  the  applica¬ 
tion  of  Christian  principles  as  embodied  in  Catholicism  at 
its  best,  this  little  group  of  Social  Catholics  found  no  hope 
for  society,  or  solution  for  the  labor  problems  confronting 
the  Republic. 

Turning  now  to  the  question  of  solving  these  problems, 
what  did  Catholicism  propose  by  way  of  constructing  the 
new  society? 

First  of  all,  the  Liberal  Catholics  found  the  solution  in 
the  principle  of  association,  which,  they  claimed,  was  noth¬ 
ing  more  than  a  logical  development  of  the  third  word  in 
the  republican  motto,  Fraternity.  The  idea  of  association 
was  in  the  air. 

To-day  [wrote  Melun],  association  is,  in  the  thought  of  work¬ 
men,  the  great  remedy  for  all  their  ills  and  for  all  their  help¬ 
lessness.  They  wish  to  have  in  common,  work,  wages  and 
relief,  hoping  to  put  themselves  in  the  place  of  the  middlemen, 
who  separate  them  from  the  consumer,  and  thus  add  to  their 
wages  the  profit  which  proprietor  and  middleman  claim. 

As  a  principle,  association  was  opposed  to  the  principle  that 
had  dominated  the  regime  of  the-  bourgeoisie,  namely, 
competition.  It  was  the  idea  of  association  that  the  soc¬ 
ialists,  in  one  form  or  another,  had  adopted  in  their  opposi¬ 
tion  to  the  then  economic  constitution  of  society.  It  was 
this  same  principle  that  the  liberal  Catholics  had  adopted, 
finding  in  it  a  fundamental  Christian  doctrine.2  “  Society 

1  Ibid.,  Oct.  27,  1848;  Bazin,  op.  cit.,  vol.  i,  p.  280.  Wrote  Maret:  “In 
the  eyes  of  a  true  statesman,  nothing  should  appear  more  important 
to-day  than  the  conciliation  of  Catholicism  with  democracy.  Christian 
democracy!  there  is  the  future.  There  will  he  no  stability,  order  or 
dignity  without  it.”  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  260. 

2  But  if  the  Social  Catholics  accepted  and  advocated  the  adoption  of 
the  principle  of  association,  they  rejected  the  extreme  form  of  it, 
communism.  “  ...  If  we  desire  association  in  labor,  we  spurn  with 


g2  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [g2 

is  not,  as  the  individualists  think  it,”  said  Melun,  .  .  .  a 
machine  without  feeling,  which  leaves  each  to  chance.  It 
is  first  and  above  all  else  a  great  association  for  defense, 
for  insurance  and  for  mutual  protection,  formed  by  God 
himself.”  For  this  reason,  while  recognizing  the  advant¬ 
ages  that  had  accrued  from  the  destructive  work  of  1791,1, 
the  Social  Catholics  unsparingly  flayed  the  selfishness  that 
the  individualistic  regime  had  engendered. 

The  Constituent  Assembly  [to  quote  Melun  again]  in  abolish¬ 
ing  the  Gilds,  the  Corporations  and  the  feudal  rights,  has 
broken  down  the  last  obstacles  that  prevented  men  from  obtain¬ 
ing  work  and  acquiring  property.  ...  It  has  prepared  a  road, 
which  would  enable  men  of  industry,  of  energy  and  of  per¬ 
severance,  to  march  on  towards  happiness  and  riches.  Since 
1789  humanity  has  proceeded  rapidly  in  this  direction. 

But  1789  did  not  finish  its  task;  1848  must  complete  the 
work  of  the  first  Revolution.3  Even  the  Univers,  which 
can  by  no  means  be  accused  of  a  rapprochement  towards 
socialism,  found  in  the  principle  of  association  a  key  to 
the  great  problems  of  the  hour.  Let  the  various  bodies 
within  the  state,  it  urged,  “  form  associations  and  them¬ 
selves  determine  the  quality,  the  quantity  and  the  price  of 
their  products.”  4  Then  the  laborer  would  have  a  voice  in 
regulating  production,  the  price  of  commodities  and  the 

all  our  strength  association  in  consumption,  that  is  to  say,  life  in 
common.  .  .  .  To-day  the  common  life  would  be  a  cause  of  immediate 
dissolution  of  every  kind  of  association.  This  reason  would  suffice 
to  make  us  reject  it,  even  if,  which  it  is  not,  it  were  consistent  with 
the  conservation  of  the  family  and  the  conditions  of  justice  and  of 
liberty  which  we  have  laid  down.”  Art.  Du  communisme,  by  A.  Ott 
in  Revue  nationale,  February,  1848.  Ott  was  a  disciple  of  Buchez. 

1  Ere  nouvelle,  February  18,  1849. 

2  Melun,  Intervention  de  la  societe,  p.  22. 

3  Univers,  June  1,  1848. 

4  Revue  nationale,  April  13,  1848. 


THE  SOCIAL  CRISIS  OF  1848 


93 


93] 

scale  of  wages.  “  In  social  as  in  political  economy  ”,  wrote 
Montalembert  to  the  electors  of  Doubs,  “  I  have  a  profound 
faith  in  the  principle  of  association,  the  only  one  which  has 
not  yet  been  tried  in  modern  France,  the  only  one,  perhaps, 
which  shall  be  able  to  conciliate  all  interests.  .  .  .”  1  The 
Ere  Noavelle  likewise  found  in  the  principle  of  association 
a  means  of  avoiding  the  errors  of  the  past  as  well  as  of 
escaping  the  dangers  of  the  future. 

Association !  That  is  what  ought  to  be  the  powerful  lever  of 
modern  society.  .  .  .  Do  not  forget  it :  there  is  our  strength ; 
there  are  all  our  resources.  If  democracy  is  not  destined  to  be 
the  most  monstrous  of  despotisms  that  ever  existed,  it  will  be 
to  this  principle  of  association  that  we  shall  owe  it.2 

And  the  Revue  Nationale  declared :  “  Association  is  the  true 
formula  of  social  Christianity,  in  which,  by  one  of  those 
general  presentiments  that  do  not  deceive,  every  one  searches 
at  once  the  remedy  of  present  ills  and  the  revelation  of  the 
future.”  3 

But  the  Social  Catholics  developed  the  idea  of  associa¬ 
tion,  so  that  it  meant  an  association  of  laborer  and  capital¬ 
ist  for  the  control  of  industry,  the  oversight  of  production 
and  the  sharing  of  profits,4  or  else  that  the  laborers  them¬ 
selves  should  become  the  capitalists.  “  The  end  to  attain  ”, 
said  the  Revue  Nationale ,  “  is  that  the  implements  of  labor 
may  be  possessed  by  associations  of  workmen,  instead  of, 
as  to-day  by  individuals  alone.”  5 

Association  between  workmen,  or  between  proprietors  and 
workmen  [said  Melun]  is  one  of  the  most  legitimate  rights, 

1  kre  nouvelle,  May  24,  1848. 

2  Ibid.,  February  4  and  5,  1849. 

3  May  4,  1848. 

* kre  nouvelle,  February  11,  1849. 

6  Revue  nationale,  July,  1848. 


94  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [94 

sometimes  the  most  successful,  of  the  liberty  of  labor ;  and  no 
system  appears  better  calculated  to  bring  to  an  end  war  be¬ 
tween  labor  and  capital,  than  to  associate  them,  to  cause  the 
laborer  to  enter  into  the  ranks  of  the  manufacturer,  to  change 
his  wages,  in  short,  into  a  sharing  of  the  profits.  Already 
several  great  industries  have  admitted  their  workmen  to  a 
participation  in  the  profits ;  and  it  is  a  duty  of  the  state  to 
remove  from  the  laws  all  obstacles  that  may  obstruct  the 
right  of  association.1 

But  did  Social  Catholicism  advocate  the  liberty  of  as¬ 
sociation  without  any  restrictions  whatsoever?  Did  no 
one  perceive  in  it  a  source  of  unrest,  even  violence?  At 
least  one  perceived  such  danger,  and  he  worked  out  a  solu¬ 
tion  for  the  difficulty.  This  was  Montigny,  counsel  to  the 
court  of  appeal  at  Paris. 

Ought  we  to  admit  as  a  right  [he  asked]  the  existence  of  as¬ 
sociations  with  the  pressure,  often  blind  and  unjust,  that  they 
exercise  on  industry,  with  the  disorders  that  are  their  natural 
outcome  even  in  face  of  the  rigors  of  the  law?  If  you  give 
laborers  the  right  of  association,  no  doubt  they  will  abuse  it 
by  making  exaggerated  demands,  which,  as  a  very  consequence 
of  this  inadmissible  exaggeration,  will  transform  themselves 
into  acts  of  violence.  For  associations  lead  to  unemploy¬ 
ment;  and  unemployment  for  the  laborer  is  soon  hunger 
and  always  distress. 

And  unemployment  and  distress  soon  transform  them¬ 
selves  into  use  of  force.  “We  cannot  therefore  allow  as¬ 
sociations  to  exist  apart  from  the  control  of  a  mediating 
power,”  he  declared,  “  .  .  .  .  without  embroiling  the  public 
authority  and  the  government  with  the  populace,  without 
creating  political  dangers  in  the  midst  of  which  the  very 

1  Melun,  op.  cit.,  pp.  44  et  seq.  The  reference  is  to  arts.  414,  415  and 
416  of  the  Penal  Code  which  prohibited  associations. 


THE  SOCIAL  CRISIS  OF  1848 


95 


95] 

existence  of  society  is  called  in  question.”  On  the  other 
hand  to  refuse  laborers  the  right  to  combine  would  mean 
that  whenever  there  was  a  surplus  of  labor,  wages  would 
be  reduced,  so  that  the  laborer  could  not  provide  against  a 
time  of  crisis — in  short  it  would  put  the  laborer  at  the 
mercy  of  the  grasping  industrial  exploiter.  After  the  Re¬ 
volution  of  February,  when  the  right  of  association  was 
everywhere  recognized,  such  a  thing  was  unthinkable. 
How  then  could  the  dilemma  be  avoided?  Montigny  found 
the  solution  in  representative  councils  consisting  of  an  equal 
number  of  members  elected  from  capital  and  labor,  to  dis¬ 
cuss  and  settle  general  questions  of  wages,  length  of  the 
working  day  and  relations  between  employer  and  employee. 
“  The  authority  of  these  councils  would  not  be  imperative, 
(but  purely  moral,  for  liberty  of  industry  and  labor  is  op¬ 
posed  to  all  constraint.”  Nevertheless  those  represented  in 
the  council  could  not  combine  against  its  decision.  More¬ 
over,  in  order  to  avoid  “  vexatious  irritation  ”  in  which  the 
purpose  of  the  institution  would  be  compromised,  Montigny 
advocated  having  a  kind  of  “civil  jury”  composed  of  dis¬ 
interested  citizens  to  assist  the  councils  in  forming  equitable 
judgments.  Thus  he  hoped  “  to  regulate  the  relations  be¬ 
tween  proprietor  and  labor  without  doing  injury  to  liberty 
which  was  at  once  the  first  principle  of  politics  and  the 
most  productive  element  in  commercial  prosperity.”  At 
the  same  time  he  wished  “  to  reestablish  between  the  dif¬ 
ferent  classes  the  bonds  that  egotism  had  relaxed  too  much. 
In  our  time  the  part  of  governing  consists  in  reconciling 
those  opposed  to  each  other,  uniting  what  has  been  dis¬ 
united,  recomposing  society.”  1  '< 

^his  article  was  contributed  to  the  Annales  de  la  charite  for  1848, 
pp.  244-245.  It  was  entitled,  The  necessity  of  creating  representative 
councils  for  industry.  It  was  approved  by  the  kre  nouvelle,  q.  v.,  Febru¬ 
ary  18,  1849. 


96  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [96 

The  Social  Catholics  went  further  still  and  demanded 
state  legislation  in  order  to  solve  the  social  problem. 

Guizot  had  published  in  1848  a  book  entitled,  Concerning 
Democracy  in  France ,  in  which  he  remarked : 

If  French  society  were  seriously  and  effectively  Christian,  what 
a  spectacle  it  would  afford  to-day  in  the  midst  of  the  difficult 
problems  that  confront  it!  .  .  .  Let  modern  society  not  fear 
religion  and  let  it  not  bitterly  call  in  question  its  natural  in¬ 
fluence.  That  would  be  to  give  way  to  a  puerile  terror  and  to 
adopt  a  sad  error.  You  are  in  the  midst  of  a  vast  and  in¬ 
flammable  multitude.  You  are  complaining  that  you  lack  the 
means  to  act  on  it,  to  enlighten  it,  to  direct  it,  to  restrain  it,  to 
calm  it.  .  .  .  You  have  everywhere  in  the  midst  of  this  mul¬ 
titude  men  whose  mission,  whose  constant  occupation,  is  pre¬ 
cisely  to  direct  it  in  its  beliefs,  to  comfort  it  in  its  afflictions, 
to  inspire  it  with  a  sense  of  duty,  to  reveal  hope  to  it;  who 
exercise  over  it  that  moral  influence  which  you  do  not  find  else¬ 
where.  And  will  you  not  thankfully  accept  the  influence  of 
these  men !  1 

That  is  well  [commented  the  Ere  Nouvelle].  But  it  is  not 
enough.  Let  the  priest  make  Christians  of  individuals ;  but  you 
statesmen,  on  your  part  make  the  law  more  and  more  Chris¬ 
tian.  .  .  .  Instead  then  of  restricting  ourselves  to  the  exhorta¬ 
tion  :  “  Be  Christian  and  practice  the  Gospel,”  we  ...  say  to 
those  who  hold  the  reins  of  power:  “Accomplish  in  the  social 
order  that  which  the  priest  does  in  the  moral  order;  put  your 
institutions  in  accord  with  the  principles  of  the  Gospel,  as  he 
does  the  conduct  of  individuals.  .  .  .  Attack  at  the  same  time 
ignorance  and  poverty  by  putting  instruction  before  all ;  pro¬ 
tect  childhood  from  the  excess  of  a  premature  labor;  assure 
old  age  and  disability  of  a  secure  refuge;  give  to  laborers  the 

1  The  bourgeoisie  who,  before  February  24,  1848,  were  unaware  of 
the  extent  to  which  socialistic  ideas  had  permeated  the  masses,  became 
alarmed  at  the  peril  that  threatened  them  and  sought  to  use  the  influence 
of  the  Church  to  allay  it.  Cf.  infra,  chap.  vii.  kre  nouvelle ,  art. 
“  Condition  of  social  peace/’  March  30,  1849. 


THE  SOCIAL  CRISIS  OF  1848 


97 


97] 

hope  of  repose  in  their  last  days.  Concern  yourselves  with¬ 
out  respite  with  these  vital  questions,  with  these  problems  the 
adjournment  of  which  jeopardizes  so  many  lives,  and  causes 
so  much  suffering,  so  many  resentments,  so  many  hatreds. 
Work  to  that  end,  and  you  will  behold  all  feelings  becoming 
assuaged ;  you  will  see,  as  a  reward  of  your  efforts,  social  peace 
appearing.  ...  As  long  as  these  great  interests  do  not  pre¬ 
occupy  our  legislators,  as  long  as  the  essential  questions  are 
relegated  to  the  last  rank  in  order  to  give  place  to  questions  of 
secondary  import,  so  long  will  peace  be  sought  in  vain.”  1 

The  social  problem  was,  therefore,  one  that  demanded 
state  action.  The  Vicomte  de  Melun  doulbtless  expressed 
the  feelings  of  his  party  when  he  wrote: 

They  have  made  a  singular  creation  out  of  society.  It  presents 
itself  to  the  greatest  number  in  the  form  of  a  tax-collector 
who  ruins,  of  a  policeman  who  arrests,  of  a  judge  who  con¬ 
demns,  of  a  hangman  who  imprisons  or  executes,  and  they 
fear  to  show  it  as  a  mother  who  protects.2 

But  it  was  precisely  under  this  last  aspect  that  some,  in 
supporting  the  project  of  the  droit  au  travail,3  wished  to 
present  the  state.  The  phrase  droit  au  travail,  as  well  as 
the  idea  that  lay  beneath  it,  originated  with  Louis  Blanc; 
and  it  had  become  a  cherished  project  of  many,  if  not  all, 
those  who,  commonly  called  socialists,  looked  and  worked 
for  the  amelioration  of  the  working  classes.  Some  even 
saw  in  it  the  application  of  the  very  principles  for  which 
the  Republic  stood.  “  It  has  been  said,”  affirmed  Ledru- 
Rollin,  “that  the  droit  au  travail  is  socialism:  I  reply,  No! 
the  droit  au  travail  is  the  Republic  applied.” 4  It  there  - 

1  Ere  nouvelle,  March  30,  1849. 

5  Op.  cit.,  p.  19. 

*  Right  to  Employment. 

4  Session  of  September  12,  1848,  Moniteur  of  September  13. 


9g  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [9 g 

fore  found  its  way  into  the  Declaration  of  Rights,  which, 
in  imitation  of  1789,  constituted  the  preface  to  the  Con¬ 
stitution  of  1848.  “  Society  is  under  obligation  ”,  it  main¬ 

tained,  “  by  the  general  and  productive  means  that  are  at 
its  disposal,  as  well  as  by  those  which  will  ultimately  be 
organized,  to  furnish  labor  to  all  able-bodied  men  who  are 
unable  to  find  it  elsewhere.”  The  project  was  warmly  de¬ 
bated  in  the  Constituent  Assembly  in  September,  1848;' 
and  on  the  part  of  the  Social  Catholics  was  supported  in 
the  press  by  the  Ere  Nouvelle ,  and  in  the  Assembly  itself 
by  a  young  liberal,  but  ardent  Catholic,  Frederic  Arnaud 
[commonly  know  as  Arnaud  de  l’Ariege,  from  the  con¬ 
stituency  which  he  represented].  Some  had  objected  to 
the  very  idea  of  having  a  “  philosophical  preamble  ”  to  the 
Constitution.  But  not  so  the  Ere  Nouvelle.  “What! 
Cannot  France  inscribe  in  the  frontispiece  of  its  constitu¬ 
tion  a  part  at  least  of  its  Christian  and  reasonable  tradi¬ 
tion!  Cannot  the  legislators  write  at  the  head  of  its  laws 
that  which  is  in  the  reason  and  conscience  of  France  !  ”  1 
The  Ere  Nouvelle f  as  did  Louis  Blanc  and  his  followers, 
found  in  the  droit  au  travail  a  remedy  against  one  of  the 
greatest  evils  of  the  years  preceding  the  Republic  of  1848, 
namely,  unemployment. 

The  droit  au  travail  [it  declared]  has  been  born  out  of  the 
suffering  of  the  people.  It  is  a  cry  of  distress  uttered  by  the 
masses  of  workmen  who  are  immersed  in  poverty.  Because 
of  this  it  should  arouse  the  deepest  compassion  within  every 
man  who  possesses  a  Christian  heart.  This  suffering  and 
poverty  are  due,  in  a  great  measure,  to  those  economic  theories 
that  have  as  their  purpose  and  result  the  development  of  wealth 
for  the  profit  of  the  few,  in  reducing  the  laborer  to  the  con¬ 
dition  of  being  merely  an  instrument  of  production.  On  the 
one  hand  the  forced  reduction  of  wages,  and  on  the  other  the 


1  Ere  nouvelle,  September  1 1,  1848. 


THE  SOCIAL  CRISIS  OF  1848 


99 


99] 

inevitable  crises  of  industry  and  commerce,  which  suspend  all 
labor  and  suppress  even  the  most  meagre  wages,  have  created 
this  profound  woe  of  our  civilization,  this  destructive  plague 
called  pauperism.1 

For  the  “  disinherited  of  the  human  family  ”  the  droit  an 
travail  was  a  consolation,  nay  more,  a  hope.  Should  they, 
therefore,  be  deprived  of  it?  “  We  affirm  the  contrary. 
There  is  in  this  sentiment  ....  the  idea  of  eternal  justice; 
there  is  in  it  a  philosophical  and  moral  truth,  the  right  to 
existence  by  means  conforming  to  the  nature  of  man.” 
Arnaud  de  l’Ariege  maintained  much  the  same  thesis  be¬ 
fore  the  Constituent  Assembly.  “  When  society  contains 
numerous  victims  of  egotism,  of  bad  faith,  of  ill-will,  or, 
at  least  of  neglect  and  indifference,  ought  the  state  to  fold 
its  arms?”  he  asked.2 

The  Ere  Nouveile  recognized,  however,  the  danger  of 
having  such  a  formula  as  the  droit  au  travail  inscribed  in 
the  Constitution  of  the  Republic.  It  would,  therefore,  limit 
its  application.8  The  state  could  not  furnish  labor  to  the 
unemployed  beyond  its  resources.4  Moreover  such  a  con¬ 
stitutional  right  should  not  be  made  an  excuse  for  “  idle¬ 
ness,  disorder  or  lack  of  foresight  ”  on  the  part  of  citizens. 
Nor  should  the  state  in  its  endeavor  to  fulfil  this  obligation 
become  a  competitor  with  private  industry  so  as  to  hamper 
it.5  Notwithstanding,  here  was  a  fundamental  right  of 

xkre  nouveile,  September  18,  1848. 

x  Moniteur,  September  14,  1848,  Session  of  Sept.  13. 

3C/.  Bazin,  op.  cit.,  vol.  i,  p.  282.  “We  have  rejected  as  a  deplorable 
error  the  droit  au  travail  in  the  sense  that  the  socialists  give  it.  We 
have  demanded  for  man  the  right  to  existence  by  employment  or  by 
assistance.  And  the  application  of  this  right  has  been  confined  within 
limits  that  will  guarantee  the  interests  of  all.” 

4  kre  nouveile,  September  18,  1848. 

6 Ib'l . 


IOo  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [ioo 

man  that  could  not  be  denied  without  bringing  dire  conse¬ 
quences.  “  When  God  brings  man  into  existence  and 
while  he  maintains  him  in  it,  he  gives  him  at  the  same  time 
the  right  to  all  that  is  strictly  necessary  to  the  maintenance 
of  this  life,  to  his  intellectual,  moral  and  physical  develop¬ 
ment.”  1  Let  the  National  Assembly,  therefore,  be  as¬ 
sured  that  the  debate  of  a  day  cannot  decide  such  a  question ; 
for  it  is  one  that  “  survives  its  judges,  and  which  pro¬ 
vidence  holds  open  for  centuries,  if  necessary,  for  the  educa¬ 
tion  of  man,”  2  “  When  one  sees  the  state  ”,  said  A  maud 

de  l'Ariege,  “  except  itself  from  interference  to  relieve  the 
poor  who  faint  for  want  of  food,  do  not  say  that  the  state 
protects  liberty:  say  that  it  protects  egotism.”  3 

The  most  thoroughgoing  project  of  state  legislation 
which  the  Social  Catholics  proposed  in  1848  for  the  solu¬ 
tion  of  the  social  problem,  was  that  of  the  Vicomte  de 
Melun,4  There  is  at  the  root  of  almost  all  human  ills,  he 
said,  “  weakness,  ignorance,  improvidence  or  vice.” 

Against  all  these  causes  [he  continued],  society  is  able  to  per¬ 
form  the  triple  mission  of  prevention,  relief  and  cure.  To 
weakness  it  will  offer  assistance ;  to  ignorance,  instruction ;  to 
improvidence,  prudence;  to  vice,  education,  punishment  and 
rehabilitation.  But  it  will  intervene  only  when  personal  re¬ 
sources  or  family  support  are  lacking,  or  when  the  aid  de¬ 
manded  can  come  from  no  other  source.5 

1  Ere  nouvelle,  September  18,  1848. 

3  Ibid.,  October  18,  1848. 

*  Moniteur,  September  14,  1848,  Session  of  September  13. 

4  De  V intervention  de  la  societe  pour  prevcnir  et  soulager  la  misere 
(Paris,  148).  “It  is  Armand  de  Melun  who  best  represents  the  Social 
Catholic  movement  of  1848.”  Dreyfus,  Ferdinand,  Uassistance  sous  la 
seconde  republique  (Paris,  1907),  p.  96. 

‘Melun,  ot>.  cit.,  p.  31. 


IOI 


101  ]  THE  SOCIAL  CRISIS  OF  1848 

The  state  was  to  surround  the  individual  from  birth — and 
even  before  by  means  of  maternity  institutions — to  old  age 
and  death,  with  a  series  of  laws  which  should  ensure  him 
the  maximum  amount  of  happiness  and  welfare. 

Realizing  the  importance  of  childhood,  its  protection  and 
training,  Melun  advocated  the  institution  of  maternity  hos¬ 
pitals,  day  nurseries  for  the  care  of  infants  whose  mothers 
worked  outside  the  home,  orphanages,  agricultural  colonies 
and  technical  schools.  All  children  who  worked  in  factories 
should  be  given  strict  supervision  lest  they  should  be  per¬ 
manently  injured  in  health  or  morals  by  their  surround¬ 
ings.  For  them  he  would  combine  instruction  with  work, 
or  divide  'the  time  between  the  two.1  Great  emphasis  was 
placed  upon  education,  which  he  called  “  the  most  power¬ 
ful  means  of  influencing  childhood  and  youth;  for”,  he 
declared,  “  it  trains  the  will,  and  instructs  it  to  make  good 
use  of  its  energies,  its  intelligence  and  resources.”  2  Educa¬ 
tion  should  therefore  be  compulsory,  and  where  necessary, 
free.3  Protection  should  also  be  provided  for  young  work¬ 
men  in  factories  and  mills  to  prevent  industrial  work  from 
degrading  them  to  the  level  of  mere  machines.4 

The  adult,  having  been  reared  in  school  and  furnished  with 
a  trade  through  apprenticeship,  may  seem,  when  he  has  at¬ 
tained  his  prime,  to  have  no  further  need  of  protection.  But 
life  is  difficult  and  a  fall  is  speedy  for  him  who  is  so  close  to 
poverty.  He  cannot  afford,  even  for  a  moment,  to  relax  his 
foresight  and  caution.  He  lacks  the  leisure  to  procure  for 
himself  all  the  treasures  of  health,  knowledge  and  preserva¬ 
tion.  It  is  in  the  interest  of  society  to  create  for  him  such 
institutions  as  shall  enable  him  to  save,  to  preserve  his  strength 

1  Melun,  op.  cit .,  pp.  32-33. 

7  Ibid.,  p.  35. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  34. 

*  Ibid. 


102  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [i02 

and  his  morality  and  to  prevent  his  bodily  labor  from  stifling 
his  intelligence.1 

The  law,  therefore,  should  as  far  as  possible  safeguard  the 
workingman.  Savings-banks  should  be  instituted  to  en¬ 
courage  thrift;  free  lectures  and  libraries  founded  to  for¬ 
tify  him  against  the  ills  due  to  ignorance;  lotteries  and 
gambling  dens  prohibited  and  cabarets  and  places  of 
amusement  in  order  to  protect  his  morals  strictly  regu¬ 
lated.2  Melun  recognized  also  the  necessity  of  having 
proper  habitations  for  working-men.  “  The  housing  of! 
workmen  calls  for  a  great  reform  ”,  he  asserted.  Too 
often  their  dwellings  were  mere  hovels,  which,  damp  and 
foul,  lacking  light  and  air,  bred  pestilence  and  disease,  and 
brought  on  premature  old  age.  If  the  law  regulated  the 
nature  of  houses  that  were  to  be  built  in  certain  localities, 
if  it  decreed  the  demolition  of  houses  for  the  beautifying 
of  streets  and  the  safeguarding  of  life,  why  should  it  not 
legislate  concerning  those  that  threatened  their  occupants, 
by  their  insalubrious  surroundings,  with  a  slow  death  ?  3 
The  law  should  likewise  protect  the  working-man  by 
means  of  factory  regulations.  It  should  prohibit  child  em¬ 
ployment,  or  else  impose  conditions  for  his  instruction  and 
recreation.4  It  should  protect  the  adult  against  unsanitary 
conditions  in  his  place  of  work,  against  dangerous  mach¬ 
inery  and  against  excess  of  labor. 

But  society  should  not  only  seek  to  prevent,  it  should 
seek  also  to  heal  and  relieve.  For  illness,  disability  and 
old  age  there  should  be  provided  hospitals,  free  medical  aid, 
convalescent  homes,  insane  asylums,  institutions  for  the 

1  Melun,  op.  cit.,  p.  42. 

2 Ibid . 

*Ibid.,  pp.  46-47. 

4  Ibid.,  p.  53. 


THE  SOCIAL  CRISIS  OF  1848 


103 


103] 

deaf  and  dumb  and  blind.1  Where  punishment  was  neces¬ 
sary  to  combat  crime,  it  should  be  meted  out  with  the  in¬ 
tention  to  restore  rather  than  to  avenge.  For  “  the  lawl 
ought  not  to  imitate  those  whom  it  attacks :  it  is  free  from 
anger  and  consequently  from  revenge.  Justice  strikes  to 
rehabilitate  and  punishes  in  order  to  improve,  and  expia¬ 
tion,  in  order  to  be  effective,  has  need  of  taking  charity  with 
it  into  the  prison.”  2 

The  great  question  of  the  time  was  unemployment. 
How  should  the  laborer  be  protected  against  that?  While 
objecting  to  the  introduction  of  the  droit  au  travail  in  the 
constitution,  Melun  nevertheless  realized  that  it  was  es¬ 
sential  for  society  to  go  to  the  rescue  of  the  “  innocent 
victims  of  liberty  ”,  those  who  were  “  weighed  down 
beneath  the  march  of  progress.”  3  The  government,  he 
suggested,  could  prevent  much  of  the  decrease  in  wages  due 
to  competition  of  labor,  by  regulating  the  establishment  of 
industries,  prohibiting  their  introduction  into  localities 
where  they  would  be  liable  to  cause  those  evils.4  The 
state  might  also  forestall  excess  of  labor  in  the  towns  by 
encouragement  given  to  agriculture,  which  would  thus  make 
the  rural  population  less  eager  to  flock  to  the  towns.5 
Moreover,  if  an  attempt  were  made  to  point  out  to  the 
inhabitants  of  the  country  the  dangers  and  illusions  of  the 
city  life,  at  the  same  time  emphasizing  the  advantages  of 
the  country,  the  movement  towards  the  cities  might  be 
somewhat  checked.  Against  great  industrial  crises  society 
should  also  seek  to  protect  the  working-man.  The  govern- 

1  Melun,  op.  cit.,  p.  38. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  48. 

5  Ibid.,  p.  55. 

4  Ibid.,  p.  56. 

5  Ibid.,  p.  58. 


IQ4  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [104 

ment,  by  means  of  public  works,  which  would  be  of  great 
utility  to  the  country  as  well  as  of  service  to  the  laborer, 
should  endeavor  to  relieve  such  a  crisis.  If  necessary,  it 
might  concentrate  into  one  year  a  piece  of  work  which 
ordinarily  would  be  spread  over  several  years,  and  thus  it 
would  relieve  unemployment.1 

Pauperism  ought  to  be  and  can  be  successfully  combatted 
[concluded  Melun]  ...  by  enlightened  and  persevering  ef¬ 
forts,  by  a  sustained  application  of  the  public  intelligence  and 
good  will,  by  a  series  of  measures,  of  laws,  of  institutions,  be¬ 
ginning  with  birth,  supervising  the  education  of  the  child, 
providing  for  the  treatment  of  the  afflicted,  caring  for  the 
needs  of  the  disabled  and  the  aged,  aiding  and  assisting  labor,  en¬ 
couraging  thrift,  sheltering  the  destitute,  restoring  the  penitent, 
protecting  the  workingman  against  greed  and  fraud,  preparing 
for  him  better  lodgings,  clothing  and  food,  and  affording  to  the 
willing  and  provident  the  means  of  raising  themselves  by 
successive  and  easy  stages  to  enfranchisement,  from  ignor¬ 
ance  to  knowledge,  from  bad  to  good,  from  charity  to  wage¬ 
earning,  from  proletarian  to  proprietaire.2 

But  Melun  was  not  content  with  a  mere  theoretical  re¬ 
lief  of  the  poverty  and  suffering  of  the  lower  classes.  He 
was  a  man  of  action  as  well  as  a  man  of  ideas.  Owing  to 
the  influence  of  his  friend  Falloux,  who  was  convinced 
that  his  ideas  and  work  would  be  beneficial  to  the  country, 
he  was  elected  to  the  Legislative  Assembly  on  the  13th  of 
May,  1 849. 3  There  he  was  lin'sitrumental  in  effecting  the 

1  Melun,  op.  cit.,  p.  52. 

1  Ibid.,  p.  64. 

*  Melun,  de,  Memoires,  vol.  ii,  pp.  36  et  seq.  “  I  feel  myself  already 
in  the  grip  of  the  electoral  fever/'  he  wrote  in  February,  1849.  “  If  I 

should  consider  only  my  own  ambition  and  my  pleasure,  I  should  be 
tempted  to  seek  a  more  convenient  road  somewhere  else.  But  I  say  to 
myself  every  day  that  there  is  here  a  great  work  to  be  done,  the  crown- 


THE  SOCIAL  CRISIS  OF  1848 


105 


105] 

creation  of  the  grande  commission  d’ assistance  pnblique, 
which  instituted  the  relief  laws  of  the  Second  Republic. 
The  heart  of  this  commission  consisted  of  a  small  group  of 
“  men,  young,  energetic,  inspired  by  the  Christian  spirit 
the  leaders  of  which  were  Melun  and  his  brother.1 

ing  of  all  my  work,  the  introduction  of  charity  into  politics,  the  recon¬ 
ciliation  of  the  rich  and  the  poor,  of  him  who  possesses  with  him 
who  suffers;  and  it  is  only  from  the  height  of  the  tribune  and  by  legis¬ 
lation  that  the  treaty  of  peace  can  be  made  acceptable.  ...” 

1  Melun,  op.  cit.,  p.  51. 


CHAPTER  III 


The  Reaction  Against  Socialism 

The  Revolution  of  the  24th  of  February,  1848,  was  pre¬ 
ceded  by  a  vigorous  propaganda  on  the  part  of  the  soc¬ 
ialists,  who,  furthermore,  regarded  the  political  upheaval 
as  an  opportunity  to  apply  their  schemes  for  the  regenera¬ 
tion  of  society.  It  was  inevitable  that  many,  especially 
the  more  conservative  classes,  should  perceive  a  peril  in 
this  tendency  towards  a  social  revolution;  it  was  inevit¬ 
able,  too,  that  as  soon  as  they  realized  the  magnitude  of  the 
danger,  the  reaction  would  begin.  With  some  it  began  al¬ 
most  immediately;  with  others,  after  the  Insurrection  of 
June,  which  sealed  the  fate  of  the  moderate  Republic.  Be¬ 
ginning  as  a  reaction  against  socialism  it  ended  in  a  reac¬ 
tion  against  Republicanism. 

One  of  the  first  to  perceive  the  menace  that  threatened 
society  after  the  24th  of  February  was  Louis  Venillat. 
the  editor  of  the  Univers.  As  early  as  the  2nd  of  March, 
he  wrote: 

All  the  extreme  doctrines  which,  under  the  Old  Regime,  fer¬ 
mented  in  silence  within  a  few  disordered  brains,  and  which 
were  unable  to  achieve  publicity,  either  because  the  govern¬ 
ment  hindered,  or  because  they  did  not  rally  a  sufficient  num¬ 
ber  of  adherents  to  furnish  means  of  propaganda — all  these 
doctrines  burst  into  prominence.  Every  day  sects  are  hatched 
that  clamor  for  the  possible  and  the  impossible,  without  even 
taking  into  consideration  the  invariable  character  of  human 
nature.  We  have  sages  who  would  destroy  everything  and 
refashion  it  on  a  new  model.  .  .  .  They  would  create  for  man 
106  [106 


REACTION  AGAINST  SOCIALISM 


10  7] 


107 


a  social  ideal  quite  different  from  that  which  we  have  known 
since  Adam.  .  .  .  1 


Ozanam,  in  a  letter  of  the  6th  of  March,  declared  the  peril 
greater  than  that  of  any  revolution  of  the  past ; 2  and  Abbe 
Maret  signalized  the  strange  pretentions  that  clothed  them¬ 
selves  in  the  guise  of  democracy  as  the  greatest  danger  that 
menaced  the  Republic.3  It  soon  became  apparent  that  the 
words  “  republic  ”  and  “  democracy  ”  had  quite  different 
meanings  according  as  they  were  used  by  moderate  repub¬ 
licans  or  by  socialists,  “  To-day  everybody  is  republican  ”, 
affirmed  the  Univers,  “  but  not  after  the  same  fashion. 
Some  dream,  under  the  name  republic,  of  the  realization  of 
utopias  destructive  of  property  and  of  the  family,  and  sub¬ 
versive  of  all  social  order.”  4  But  to  the  moderates,  who 
constituted  the  majority  in  the  provisional  government,  the 
republic  signified  liberty  for  all,  stability  and  order.  The 
Second  Republic  was  to  be  the  arena  of  a  constant  struggle 
between  these  two  diverse  ideals.  The  great  aim  of  the 
provisional  government,  as  well  as  that  of  the  Constituent 
and  Legislative  Assemblies,  was  to  consolidate  the  moderate 
republic :  to  establish  a  stable  and  orderly  government  which 
should  be  respected  at  home  and  not  feared  abroad.  On 
the  other  hand  the  demonstrations  of  the  25th  and  26th  of 
February,  the  17th  of  March,  the  16th  of  April  and  the 
15th  of  May,  as  well  as  the  June  Insurrections  of  1848  and 
1849,  were  calculated  to  force  the  majority  to  usher  in  the 
socialistic  republic,  which  was  to  have  as  a  basis  the  Organ¬ 
ization  of  Labor.5  In  this  contest  the  weight  of  the 

1  Cf.  Joly,  Henri,  Le  socialisme  chretien  (Paris,  1892),  pp.  223-224. 

iLettres,  vol.  ii,  p.  196. 

3  kre  nouvelle,  April  19,  1S48. 

4  Univers,  March  19,  1848. 

5  Quentin-Bauchart,  La  crisc  social  de  1848  (Paris,  1930))  chs.  vii, 
x,  xii. 


io8  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [108 

Catholics  was  to  be  thrown  on  the  side  of  order  and  stab¬ 
ility. 

After  the  formation  of  the  provisional  government  the 
elections  were  the  great  preoccupation  of  all  parties.  It 
was  the  sovereign  people,  exercising  their  sovereignty 
through  universal  suffrage,  who  were  to  decide  what  the 
constitution  of  the  Republic  was  to  be.  Everything,  there¬ 
fore,  depended  upon  this  Constituent  Assembly.  The 
moderates  looked  for  it  to  establish  the  moderate  republic; 
and  the  socialists  hoped  that  they  could  obtain  a  sufficiently 
strong  representation  to  enable  them  to  carry  out  their 
schemes.1  All  parties  worked  to  have  the  majority  favor¬ 
able  to  themselves  and  to  the  ideas  for  which  they  stood. 
No  sooner  had  the  date  for  the  elections  been  set  than 
Ledru-Rollin,  the  Minister  of  the  Interior  under  the  pro¬ 
visional  government,  sent  his  emissaries  throughout  the 
country  to  organize  the  people  for  the  elections. 

At  the  head  of  each  arrondissement  [he  wrote  to  them],  place 
men  who  are  sympathetic  and  resolute.  Do  not  bother  about 
giving  them  instructions,  but  kindle  their  zeal.  By  the  elec¬ 
tions  which  are  to  take  place,  they  hold  in  their  hands  the 
destiny  of  France.  Let  them  give  us  a  National  Assembly 
capable  of  comprehending  and  achieving  the  work  of  the  people. 
In  a  word,  all  men  of  the  V eille,  and  not  of  the  Lcndemuin.2 

This  distinction  between  republicans  of  the  V eille  and  those 
of  the  Lendemain  was  sufficient  to  arouse  alarm.3  But  the 
tone  of  the  second  circular  was  much  more  threatening: 

1  This  is  the  significance  of  the  manifestation  of  March  17,  the  purpose 
of  which  was  to  have  the  elections  delayed  so  that  socialistic  propa¬ 
ganda  would  have  a  better  opportunity  to  do  its  work.  Quentin- 
Bauchart,  op.  cit.,  chap.  x. 

2  Le  moniteur  universel.  The  contrast  is  between  those  who  were  re¬ 
publicans  before  February  24th,  1848,  and  those  who  became  republicans 
after  that  day  of  revolution. 

3  Cf.  Univers,  9  March,  1848. 


REACTION  AGAINST  SOCIALISM 


109 


109] 

“You  demand  what  your  powers  are:  they  are  unlimited. 
Agent  of  the  revolutionary  government,  you  are  to  be  re¬ 
volutionary  also."  1  All  the  moderates,  and  more  especially 
the  propertied  classes,  persuaded  themselves  that  the  Min¬ 
ister  of  the  Interior,  having  made  himself  master  of  the 
administration  of  the  country,  had  decided  to  remove,  if 
necessary  by  violence,  all  opposition  from  an  assembly, 
which,  composed  solely  of  fanatical  republicans,  would  com¬ 
pass  their  ruin  in  establishing  a  socialistic  regime.2 3  To 
many  the  instructions  of  the  Minister  of  the  Interior  savored 
too  much  of  1793,  the  remembrance  of  which,  said  the 
Univers,  all  citizens,  and  members  of  the  provisional  gov¬ 
ernment  above  all,  ought  to  hasten  to  destroy.8  And  it 
added:  “  No  one  refuses  his  adhesion  to  the  republican  gov¬ 
ernment.  Who  would  wish  to  support  that  which  they 
call  the  revolutionary  government?  ”  To  Frederic  Ozanam 
it  was  a  “question  of  saving  or  ruining  France.”  4  It  is 
no  longer  a  question  between  the  monarchy  and  the  repub¬ 
lic,  declared  the  Univers.  The  true  issue  lies  elsewhere. 
“  The  true  question  is  now  between  the  pagan  republic,  a 
republic,  Lacedaemonian,  oppressive  and  tyrannical,  and 
the  Christian  republic,  modern,  tolerant  and  liberal.”  5 
“  The  socialist  schools  suppress  liberty :  may  the  elections 
be  a  reaction  against  this  retrograde  spirit."  6 

Realizing,  therefore,  that  the  future  of  France  depended 
upon  the  composition  of  the  National  Assembly,7  clergy  as 

1  Le  moniteur  universel.  Cf.  Quentin-Bauchart,  op.  cit.,  p.  259. 

2  Quentin-Bauchart,  op.  cit.,  p.  259. 

3  Univers,  March  9,  1848. 

4  Lettres,  vol.  ii,  p.  212. 

5  Univers,  March  9,  1848. 

6  Ibid.,  March  7,  1848. 

T  Cabane,  Henri,  Histoire  du  clerge  de  France  pendant  la  revolution 

de  1848  (Paris,  1908),  p.  103. 


I10  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [no 

well  as  laymen,  great  ecclesiastics  as  well  as  publicists, 
strove  for  the  moderate  republic,  the  republic  of  stability 
and  order.  The  attitude  of  the  Catholics  as  a  whole  was 
well  expressed  by  the  Univers:  “  Who  will  found  institu¬ 
tions  and  customs  truly  democratic,  if  the  Church  does  not 
assist  towards  that  end?”1  Threats  such  as  that  which 
lurked  in  the  circulars  of  Ledru-Rollin  to  his  commissioners 
only  made  them  the  more  determined.  .  .  .  institutions 
founded  on  the  Catholic  soil  of  France  ”,  declared  the  Abbe 
Etang,  “  of  which  Catholicism  did  not  furnish  the  chief 
elements,  would  be  sterile  and  ephemeral.”  2  The  leaders 
in  the  Church  were  keenly  alive  to  the  situation  which  con¬ 
fronted  the  country.  “  France  has  adopted  the  republican 
regime,”  wrote  the  bishop  of  Montauban,  “  and  nothing  is 
able  to  make  it  depart  from  this  resolution.  But  the  con¬ 
stitution  of  this  regime  is  a  problem  which  permits  of  dif¬ 
ferent  solutions.  It  is  a  question  of  discovering  the  best 
and  cleaving  to  it.”  3  “  To  be  present  as  a  simple  spectator 

at  a  movement  which  will  determine  the  condition  of  the 
country  ”,  said  the  bishop  of  Agen,  “  will  that  not  be  to 
betray  one  of  its  most  sacred  obligations,  when  it  has  need 
of  the  assistance  of  all  its  children  ?  ”  4 

A  great  act  is  being  prepared  [wrote  the  bishop  of  Digne  on 
the  15th  of  March].  The  nation  in  a  few  days  is  going  to  elect 
its  representatives  and  charge  them  to  draw  up  a  constitution 
which  will  decide  its  destinies.  .  .  .  From  the  midst  of  the 
National  Assembly,  therefore,  will  come  the  safety  of  the 
Patrie ,  its  civil  and  religious  liberty,  its  prosperity,  its  peace, 
or  else  new  tempests  and  frightful  calamities.5 

1  Univers,  March  15,  1848. 

2  Etang,  Abbe,  Catholicisms  et  la  republique  (Paris,  1848),  p.  41. 

3  Univers,  April  9,  1848. 

4  March  15:  Bazin,  Vie  dc  I’Abbe  Maret  (Paris,  1891),  vol.  i,  p.  205. 

5  Univers,  March  24,  1848. 


REACTION  AGAINST  SOCIALISM 


III 


III] 

“  In  the  present  situation  in  France  ”,  declared  the  Abbe 
Etang,  “  and  precisely  because  of  it,  Catholicism  is  the 
only  force  that  offers  to  the  government  guarantees  of  ex¬ 
istence  and  durability.”  1 

The  Constituent  Assembly  will  be  what  the  electors  make 
it  [declared  the  editor  of  the  Univers] .  If  honest  folk,  if 
Christians,  giving  in  to  counsels  of  fear,  allow  themselves  to  be 
dominated  by  audacious  minorities,  the  Assembly  will  be  bad, 
and  then  we  may  look  for  the  worst ;  but  if  they  act  as  free  men, 
if  they  know  how  to  do  their  duty,  the  Assembly  will  be  good, 
and  then  we  may  hope  for  the  best.  Let  the  clergy,  let  the 
Catholics,  meditate  on  this.  They  have  in  their  hands  infinite 
means  of  influence.  If  they  wish  to  make  use  of  them,  they 
will  be  able  to  save  France.2 

The  first  need  of  the  Catholics,  if  they  were  to  take  a  ser¬ 
ious  part  in  the  elections  for  the  new  assembly,  was  organiza¬ 
tion.  But  such  organization  they  already  had  at  hand;  and 
this  fact  doubtless  gave  the  Church  an  advantage  which 
was  not  possessed  by  the  socialists.  Under  the  leadership 
of  Montalembert,  the  Parti  Catholique  had  formed  what 
was  known  as  the  Electoral  Committee  for  Religious  Lib¬ 
erty  to  assist  in  the  campaign  for  liberty  of  education  in  the 
elections  of  1846.  All  that  was  necessary,  therefore,  in  1848 
was  to  revive  and  enlarge  this  organization.  As  early  as  the 
28th  of  February,  Montalembert  had  convoked  the  central 
committee  in  Paris,  which  immediately  began  to  despatch 

1  Etang,  op.  cit.,  p.  57. 

1  Univers ,  March  12,  1848.  The  uncertainty  which  reigned  in  the 
country  is  described  by  a  letter  of  Charles  de  Bourmont  to  Mgr.  Parisis. 
“  The  circulars  of  M.  Ledru-Rollin  have  struck  them  with  terror  and 
paralyzed  conscientious  activity.  They  have  only  one  thought,  that  of 
abstention,  in  order  not  to  compromise  themselves,  or  of  appearing  at 
the  electoral  assemblies  only  to  choose  the  men  proposed  by  the  gov¬ 
ernment,  or  rather  by  the  clubs.”  Guillemant,  Vie  de  Mgr.  Parisis 
(Paris,  1916-1917),  vol.  ii,  p.  272. 


H2  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [  1 12 

appeals  and  instructions  to  the  various  committees  in  the 
departments.1  For  their  work  was  vastly  greater  in  1848 
with  universal  suffrage  in  vogue,  than  it  had  been  in  1846 
under  a  very  restricted  suffrage.  On  this  account  it  was 
necessary  to  extend  the  organization  to  meet  the  new  de¬ 
mands,  The  central  commitee,  in  its  instructions  of  the 
8th  of  March,  insisted  on  the  need  of  organizing,  in  the 
chief  towns  of  each  department,  a  central  committee  that 
should  assume  the  responsibility  of  preparing  a  list  of  can¬ 
didates  whom  the  Catholics  ought  to  support.  Then  there 
should  be  established  in  each  arrondissement  and  in  each 
canton  k‘  energetic  and  resolute  correspondents  ”,  on  whom 
would  devolve  the  duty  of  canvassing  the  communes,  ob¬ 
taining  opinions  on  the  various  candidates,  sustaining 
those  whom  they  deemed  proper,  and  eventually  supervising 
the  elections  which  were  to  take  place  in  the  chief  town 
of  each  canton.  In  case  the  members  of  the  committees 
should  be  uncertain  as  to  the  tendencies  of  any  of  the  can¬ 
didates,  they  should  propose  a  program  which  those  can¬ 
didates  would  be  bound  by  “  honor  and  conscience  ”  to 
adopt  should  they  be  elected.  These  rural  committees,  how¬ 
ever,  were  not  to  work  in  isolation.  They  were  to  act  in 
concert  with  moderates  representing  other  shades  of  opin¬ 
ion;  and  if  they  had  on  their  lists  the  names  of  men  who 
fulfilled  the  necessary  qualifications,  they  were  not  to  hesi¬ 
tate  to  give  them  their  support,  a  wise  precaution  which 
would  prevent  splitting  the  moderate  vote.2  In  proposing 
this  common  action  with  other  committees,  the  religious 
committee  contrasted  its  liberalism  with  that  of  Ledru- 
Rollin  and  his  emissaries.  “  Would  Paris  have  made  the 
Revolution  of  February  ”,  asked  the  Univers,  “  and  would 
the  departments  have  accepted  it,  to  undergo  the  despotism 

1  Lecanuet,  Montalembert ,  vol.  ii,  p.  386. 

2  Univers ,  March  9,  1848. 


REACTION  AGAINST  SOCIALISM 


113] 


113 


of  Ledru-Rollin  and  his  agents?  We  do  not  believe  it.” 

“  France  has  not  shaken  off  the  yoke  of  corruption  to  ac¬ 
cept  that  of  terror.”  1  Such  a  method  as  that  of  the  Min¬ 
ister  of  the  Interior,  they  believed,  was  in  flagrant  viola¬ 
tion  of  the  very  first  principle  for  which  the  Republic 
stood.  “  Let  there  be  no  ostracism,  no  exclusion,  no  re¬ 
criminations,  no  reactions,  but  also  no  reservations  in  favor 
of  any  past  whatsoever.”  “  Let  us  search  our  candidates 
amongst  honest  folk  and  the  liberal  minds  of  all  classes,  of 
all  professions,  of  all  opinions  and  of  all  religions.”  No 
one  was  worthy  to  represent  France  who  did  not  respect 
the  conscience  of  another.2  “  Above  all  things  ”,  stated 
the  Ere  Nouvelle,  “  the  elector  ought  to  be  free;  he  should 
receive  or  submit  to  no  influence  other  than  that  of  truth.”  3 
Nevertheless  the  electoral  committees  were  far  from  being 
lax.  The  Catholics  were  doubtless  as  intolerant  towards  those 
whom  they  suspected  of  communistic  socialism  as  the  com¬ 
missaries  of  Ledru-Rollin  were  towards  those  whom  they 
found  insufficiently  republican  in  sympathy.  In  their  circular 
of  the  15th  of  March,  the  electoral  committee  emphatically 
stated  that  the  most  important  function  of  the  local  com¬ 
mittees  was  “  discussion  of  candidatures.”  The  Univers 
advised  the  same  procedure.  “  Let  the  electors  prepare 
themselves  for  the  elections  by  a  thoroughgoing  inquiry 
into  the  doctrines  of  the  candidates.  Absolute  ideas  are 
dangerous;  for  they  do  not  correspond  in  any  way  to  the 
necessities  of  political  life  and  of  affairs.” 4  Their  pre¬ 
dilection  was  for  “  eminent  Catholics  ”  who  had  proved  , 
themselves  trustworthy,  and  whose  “  presence  in  the 


1  Univers,  March  30,  1848. 

2  Circulaire  du  comite  electoral  de  la  liberte  religieuse,  March  15,  Bazin, 
op.  cit.,  pp.  217-218. 

3  fcre  nouvelle,  April  17,  1848. 

4  Univers,  March  9,  1848. 


!  Izj.  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [i  14 

National  Assembly  would  be  a  strong  guarantee  for  all 
men  of  order  and  of  liberty.’' 1  “  The  clergy  and  men  of 

faith  ”,  said  the  Ere  Nouvelle,  “  will  naturally  support  the 
men  most  capable  of  understanding  and  applying  the  new; 
symbol  of  France.” 2  Where  candidates  were  lacking 
whom  the  electoral  committee  approved,  outsiders  might 
be  brought  in.3 

All  the  work,  however,  was  not  left  to  the  local  com¬ 
mittees.  The  central  committee,  which  had  the  direction 
of  the  campaign  under  its  charge,  established  a  bureau  in 
Paris,  to  which  all  information  that  would  prove  of  use 
was  sent.4  But  it  also  published  a  brochure  entitled  the 
Election  Populaire,  of  which  live  numbers  appeared  during 
the  month  of  April.  Copies  were  sent  in  bales  to  the 
various  committees  in  the  country  who  scattered  them 
broadcast.5  The  purpose  of  this  leaflet  was  two-fold,  to 
clarify  opinion  and  to  stimulate  indifferent  electors  to  take 
an  interest  in  the  campaign.  One  of  its  most  noteworthy 
features  was  the  strong  appeal  which  it  made  to  rural  elec¬ 
tors.6  The  leaders  of  the  electoral  campaign  realized  that 

1  Univers,  March  7,  1848;  cf.  Stern,  Daniel,  Revolution  de  1848  (Paris, 
1862),  2nd  ed.,  vol.  ii,  p.  194. 

*  Ere  nouvelle,  April  17,  1848. 

3  Melun,  op.  cit.,  vol.  ii,  p.  3. 

4  At  the  office  of  the  publishing  house,  Lecoffre  and  Co.,  29  Rue  du 
Vieux-Colombier ;  Ozamam,  Lettres,  vol.  ii,  p.  204. 

5Lecanuet,  Montalembert,  vol.  ii,  p.  387. 

6  Cf.  Univers,  March  12:  “  The  Catholics,  the  clergy,  are  numerous 
and  strong  in  the  country:  it  will  be  their  fault  if  religious  men  are 
absent  from,  the  National  Assembly.  Let  them  work,  therefore,  to 
make  it  worthy  of  themselves  and  of  France”;  also  Etang,  op.  cit., 
pp.  53-54:  “  It  is  on  the  entire  surface  of  France,  far  from  these  great 
centers  where  passions  surge,  that  Catholicism  wields  its  sway  with 
greatest  sovereignty.”  “.  .  .  when  the  tempest  raises  itself  within  the 
queen  of  cities  and  carries  away  thrones  and  institutions,  they  (the  in- 


REACTION  AGAINST  SOCIALISM 


115] 


1 15 


their  strength  lay  in  the  country  districts  among  an 
agricultural  population,  which  had  a  majority  over  the 
industrial.1  Realizing  this  fact,  the  editor  of  the  Univers 
protested  against  the  decree  of  the  provisional  government 
which  fixed  the  polling  booths  in  the  chief  towns  of  the 
canton  rather  than  in  the  commune.2  For  this  arrangement 
gave  the  advantage  to  the  towns  over  the  rural  districts.3 
The  Election  Populaire  took  care  to  point  out  the  disastrous 
effect  which  the  organization  of  labor  and  communism 
would  have  upon  the  agricultural  proprietor.  Undoubtedly 
the  laborer  in  the  city  was  unhappy;  but  so  was  the  farmer, 
and  no  one  was  concerned  about  him.  Moreover,  and  this 
is  what  the  editors  emphasized,  the  burden  of  “  all  that 
one  proposed  to  do  for  the  laborer  would  fall  on  the  farmer.” 
“  Under  the  socialistic  regime,”  they  declared,  “  it  is  the 
budget  of  the  state  that  provides  for  the  former;  but  the 
budget  of  the  state  is  made  up  by  taxation,  and  the  taxes 
are  paid  largely  by  the  inhabitants  of  the  country.”  If 
the  socialists  obtained  control  of  the  country,  it  was  argued, 
taxation  would  be  greatly  increased.14  It  is  true  that  the 
editors  of  the  Election  Populaire  did  not  fail  to  show  the 
disadvantage  for  the  workman  of  all  schemes  for  the  organ- 


habitants  of  the  country)  are  still  calm,  they  behold  the  seething  floods 
break  at  their  feet  like  an  angry  wave  of  the  sea.  They  wait  and  they 
hope,  because  they  have  faith  in  Him  who  stills  the  tempest.  But  this 
faith  which  gives  them  their  strength,  will  give  you  strength  also,  if 
you  know  how  to  employ  it.  The  electoral  urn  is  placed  in  the  center 
of  France  ;  and  France  is  going  to  gather  around  this  urn.  Our  Catholic 
provinces,  enveloped  in  their  belief,  will  advance,  divided  between  the 
feelings  of  the  duty  of  the  citizen  and  the  feeling  of  the  man  and  of 
the  Christian.” 

1  Quentin -Bauchart,  op.  cit„  p.  44. 

2  Univers,  March  7,  1848. 

3  Ibid.,  March  12,  1848. 

4  Election  populaire,  April  17,  1848. 


!  !  6  CA  THOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [  1 1 6 

ization  of  labor;  but  their  arguments  were  more  particularly 
adapted  for  the  small  rural  proprietor.  Furthermore,  they 
sought  to  show  that  all  socialism  was  communism,  which 
was  more  thoroughgoing  in  its  alterations  of  society,  and 
consequently  inspired  the  greater  fear.1  “  Do  you  wish 
to  know,  electors,  what  communism  is?  Civilization  has 
brought  the  right  of  “  territorial  property  ” ;  and  Christ¬ 
ianity  has  established  the  “  unity  and  the  indissolubity  of 
marriage.”  But 

to-day  communism  pretends  to  change  all  that;  it  wishes  us  to 
return  to  the  childhood  of  society.  ...  It  desires  no  longer 
individual  property ;  no  longer  the  family ;  no  longer  the  liberty 
of  the  individual.  .  .  .  Do  not  forget,  electors,  that  the  com¬ 
munists  propose  to  put  in  practice  their  mad  theories ;  that  they 
proclaim  themselves  the  avengers  of  the  poor,  and  that  such 
men  know  only  a  single  object  of  toleration,  that  which  works 
to  their  profit.2 

If  therefore  the  electors  wished  to  preserve  religion,  liberty, 
family  and  property,  let  them  avoid  those  who  “  professed 
admiration  and  regret  for  ’93  ”,  who  “  hoisted  the  red  flag  ”, 
who  “  eulogized  Robespierre  and  Marat  ” ;  3  let  them  neglect 
nothing  to  send  to  the  National  Assembly  men  whose  mor¬ 
ality  was  known,  whose  good  sense  had  been  shown,  and 
whose  courage  was  inflexible,  “  champions  resolved  to  die, 
if  necessary,  for  the  defense  of  these  eternal  bases  of  all 
society.”  4  If  they  did  not  wish  an  increasing  burden  of 
taxation,  let  the  “  inhabitants  of  the  country  go  to  the  elec¬ 
tions  and  elect  men  less  occupied  with  organizing  labor  in 

1  “  Of  all  socialistic  doctrines,  it  is  communism  that  to-day  spreads  the 
greatest  terror/'  Revue  nationale,  February,  1848. 

2  Election  populaire,  April  18,  1848. 

*  Ibid.,  April  7. 

4  Ibid.,  April  18. 


REACTION  AGAINST  SOCIALISM 


II 7] 


117 


the  cities  ”/  men  who,  “  freed  from  vain  theories  and  anti- 
social  chimeras,  would  desire  only  the  good  of  all,  and 
would  not  seek  to  establish  the  delusive  happiness  of  some 
on  the  very  real  unhappiness  of  others  ”.1 2  When  it  is  con¬ 
sidered  that  the  Revolution  of  1789  had  vastly  increased 
the  number  of  small  holdings,3  and  that  it  had  removed  a 
great  burden  of  taxation  from  the  peasantry,4  it  will  be 
readily  seen  that  these  arguments  of  the  Election  Populaire 
could  not  have  been  without  effect.  The  Church,  therefore, 
wished  to  call  in  the  country  to  redress  the  balance  of  the 
towns. 

But  the  Catholics  went  further  and  made  participation 
in  the  elections  a  religious  duty.  “  Electors  ”,  declared  the 
Election  Populaire ,  “  you  belong  to  your  country,  to  human¬ 
ity  and  to  the  Church,  which  is  the  great  universal  family. 
Woe  betide  you  if  ...  .  you  desert  the  political  arena! 
The  safety  of  France  is  in  your  hands.  God  will  demand 
a  strict  account  of  the  mission  which  has  been  confided  to 
you.”  5  The  bishop  of  Quimper  advised  his  clergy  to  in¬ 
struct  their  parishioners  that  they  were  under  an  obligation 
to  attend  the  elections.6  Another  ecclesiastic  wrote  that 
not  only  could  a  Catholic  absent  himself  from  the  Mass, 
but  he  ought  to  do  so,  if  he  found  it  impossible  to  perform 
the  duties  of  both  citizen  and  Catholic.7  “  A  good  vote 


1  Election  populaire ,  April  7. 

*  Ibid.,  April  15. 

3  It  is  estimated  that  in  1840  there  were  over  4,000,000  agricultural 
property  holders,  of  whom  at  least  3,500,000  were  small  proprietors. 
Quentin-Bauchart,  op.  cit.,  p.  48. 

4  Ibid.,  p.  45. 

5  Election  populaire,  April  12. 

6  Univers,  March  23. 

7  Cabane,  op.  cit.,  p.  116,  citation  from  Univers  of  March  16. 


I  iS  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [ 1 18 

on  that  day  will  be  the  best  prayer/ ’  declared  a  priest  writ¬ 
ing  to  the  Univers.1 

In  this  work  of  preparing  the  country  for  the  elections 
a  very  active  part  was  taken  by  the  clergy.  Shortly  after 
the  Revolution  of  the  24th  of  February,  Montalembert,  see- 
ing  the  importance  of  having  the  cooperation  of  the  higher 
clergy,  addressed  a  confidential  letter  to  all  the  bishops 
urging  them  to  do  their  duty  lest  the  fate  of  1789  befall  the 
Church. 

Let  them  cooperate  [he  urged],  without  fear  and  without  strife 
.  .  .  .  ,  on  the  one  side  with  the  cures  of  the  canton,  on  the 
other  with  the  friends  of  religious  liberty  in  their  dioceses  .  .  . 
with  the  view  to  discover  and  to  designate  the  men  most  worthy, 
from  the  social  and  Catholic  point  of  view,  of  the  suffrage  of 
honest  men.2 

Some  of  the  clergy  indeed  had  scruples  about  participating 
in  a  political  struggle.  But  to  the  majority  France  in  her 
difficulty  had  need  of  the  cooperation  of  all  the  wisdom 
and  of  all  the  devotion  of  all  parties,  clergy  as  well  as  lay¬ 
men.3  “  Who  can  blame  us?”  demanded  the  Archbishop 
of  Paris.  “  We  do  not  vote  for  any  of  the  parties  which 
hitherto  have  divided  our  assemblies,  but  for  a  single  party, 
in  which  all  the  others  ought  to  be  lost  to-day:  this  party 
is  that  of  order  and  of  liberty  ”.4  It  was  the  social  crisis 
that  drew  the  Catholics  into  politics,  rather  than  the  desire  to 
support  any  one  political  tenet.  In  some  cases  the  lower 
clergy  called  upon  the  bishops,  many  of  whom  were  holding 
back,  to  assume  the  leadership  lest  the  clergy  be  divided  and 

1  The  elections  were  set  for  Easter  Sunday,  April  23 ;  cf.  chap.  1,  p.  55. 
Univers,  March  12,  1848. 

2  Lecanuet,  Montalembert,  vol.  iii,  p.  389. 

3  Lacordaire,  tre  nouvelle,  April  22,  1848. 

4  Lecanuet,  op.  cit.,  p.  389. 


REACTION  AGAINST  SOCIALISM 


1 19] 


119 


thus  lose  the  effect  of  their  influence.1  Carnot,  the  Minister 
of  Education  and  Worship,  likewise  issued  an  appeal  for  the 
cooperation  of  the  clergy.  Reminding  them  that  they  were 
French  citizens,  and  that  as  such  they  possessed  the  right 
to  participate  in  all  political  affairs,  he  urged  them  to  take 
their  places  in  the  electoral  assemblies  and  in  the  National 
Assembly  to  defend  there  the  one  great  interest  of  all,  “  that 
of  the  patrie,  closely  related  to  that  of  religion.”  2  There 
was  a  widespread  response  to  these  appeals.3  Many  of  the 
clergy  offered  themselves  as  candidates  for  the  Constituent 

. . . . . . . . . . n.  i  'I . . . . 

Assembly,  the  most  distinguished  amongst  them  being 
Abbes  Lacgrdaire  and  Bautain,  and  the  bishops  of  Langres, 
Ouimper  and  Orleans.  As  candidates  they  either  avowed 
their  devotion  to  republican  principles,  or  if  not  to  re¬ 
publicanism,  at  least  to  “  Christian  and  National  ”  liberties, 
as  Lacordaire.  But  just  as  strongly  they  affirmed  that 
they  stood  for  what  they  believed  to  be  the  fundamental 
bases  of  society,  the  family,  private  property  and  personal 
liberty.  The  Abbe  Bautain,  after  pledging  his  electors  to 
maintain  liberty  of  person  and  of  association,  ended  by 
stating  that  he  would  contend  no  less  resolutely  for  “  liberty 
of  persons  and  of  property,  without  which,”  he  declared, 


1  Guillemant,  Charles  Louis  Parisis  (Paris,  1916-1917),  vol.  ii,  p.  272. 

*Univers,  March  11,  1848.  Carnot,  although  belonging  to  the  school 
of  Saint-Simon,  was  not  in  sympathy  with  the  socialism  of  the  Second 
Republic.  Carnot,  Le  ministre  de  I’instruction  publique  et  des  cultes 
(Paris),  1848,  p.  31. 

3  “  My  clergy,”  wrote  bishop  Guibert,  “  are  throwing  themselves  head¬ 
long  into  the  work  of  the  elections.  They  have  seriously  proposed  to 
me  to  establish  a  committee  with  each  cure  of  the  canton  which  will  cor¬ 
respond  with  the  vicars  who  will  bring  their  parishioners  to  vote  in  the 
chief  town.”  Paguelle  de  Follenay,  Vie  de  Cardinal  Guibert,  vol.  ii, 
p.  106.  The  influence  of  this  bishop  is  shown  by  his  statement  that  he 
had  the  election  of  nine  deputies  under  his  control,  and  he  was  not  a 
man  to  exaggerate;  cf.  Weill,  Catholicisms  liberal  en  France  (Paris, 
1909),  p.  93. 


I2o  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [120 

“  there  is  neither  security  ruor  dignity  in  the  social  state.”  M 
Another  clerical  candidate,  M.  Caron,  cure  of  Nesle,  while 
finding  himself  in  perfect  harmony  with  the  program  of 
the  new  republic,  did  not  hesitate  to  affirm  that  he  did  not 
dream  of  an  “  equality  of  social  position.”  “  That  is  an 
absurd  and  criminal  chimera  ”,  he  said;  “  that  is  the  theory 
of  robbery,  the  ruin  of  society  and  the  family  in  pillage  and 
blood.” 1  2  One  cure  [of  the  Cathedral  of  Beauvais],  who 
had  apparently  gone  farther  than  most  in  his  zeal  for  the  re¬ 
public,  was  accused  of  being  a  communist ;  but  he  repudiated 
such  an  appellation  :“Ia  communist !  ”  he  exclaimed,  “.  .  .  . 
I  shall  demand  until  death  the  maintenance  of  the  family 
and  of  property;  and  what  is  communism,  if  it  is  not  the 
destruction  of  the  one  as  well  as  of  the  other?  ”  3 

When  the  election  day  arrived  the  activity  of  the  clergy 
was  not  less  evident.  The  bishops  had  given  instructions 
that  the  services!  of  the  day  should  be  arranged  so  as  not  to 
interfere  with  the  casting  of  the  ballot. 

Everywhere  in  the  country  [said  Daniel  Stem],  they  celebrate 
Easter  Mass  at  the  dawn  of  day.  As  soon  as  the  service  is 
over,  the  cure  joining  the  mayor,  the  justice  of  the  peace,  the 
commandant  of  the  National  Guard  and  the  school-teacher, 
they  assemble  the  electors,  form  them  in  column  and  conduct 
them  in  procession,  with  banner  unfurled  and  band  playing, 
singing  patriotic  songs,  to  the  chief  towns  of  the  canton.4 

All  this  took  place  with  very  few  disturbances.5  The 
result  exceeded  the  expectations  of  even  the  most  sanguine. 

1  Univers,  April  8,  1848. 

1Ibid.,  April  17,  1848. 

8 Ibid . 

4  Stern,  op.  cit.,  vol.  ii,  p.  203 ;  cf.  Guillemant,  op.  cit.,  vol.  ii,  p.  274. 

6  Stern,  op.  cit.,  vol.  ii,  p.  203. 


REACTION  AGAINST  SOCIALISM 


121 


I2l] 

Thus,  said  the  bishop  of  Langres,  “  the  rural  populations 
have  caused  all  to  see  that  ....  simplicity  of  manners 
united  with  religious  conviction  suffices  to  give  a  high  and 
serious  idea  of  civic  obligations,”  1  Nothing  is  more  sig¬ 
nificant,  stated  the  Univers,  than  this  eagerness  of  the 
rural  communes  to  rise  up  as  one  man  in  order  to  put  the 
“  red  list  ”  at  the  foot  of  the  polls,2 

That  the  influence  of  the  clergy  in  the  elections  was  by 
no  means  negligible  their  opponents  bear  witness. 

Not  far  from  the  chateau  is  the  vicarage  [said  the  Reforme , 
the  journal  of  Proudhon]  ;  there  also  is  exerted  an  influence 
more  dangerous  still  than  that  of  the  former.  For  the  priest 
rules  in  some  manner  over  the  thought  of  the  peasant  as  the 
noble  over  his  field.  And  let  no  one  say  that  the  French  clergy 
have  received  the  republic  with  love  and  gratitude:  one  does 
not  break  so  quickly  with  the  past.3 

And  after  the  elections  had  taken  place  the  National,  dis¬ 
appointed  in  not  finding  the  Assembly  more  republican, 
stated : 

The  reports  that  are  coming  to  us  from  many  of  the  depart¬ 
ments  prove  that  the  influence  of  the  clergy  has  been  exerted 
in  a  manner  hostile  to  the  republic.  .  .  .  Certain  bishops  have 
used  without  scruple  these  dangerous  arms  which  the  pro¬ 
visional  government  has  placed  in  their  hands.  There  are,  we 
know  it,  some  dioceses  where  the  cures  of  the  towns  and 
countryside  have  received  very  imperious  and  singularly  de¬ 
tailed  proscriptions.4  I  hear  it  said  everywhere  [stated  the 
Christ  Republican],  that  the  priests  have  intrigued  in  the  elec¬ 
tions  in  the  departments;  that  they  have  forced  their  parish- 

1  Guillemamt,  op.  cit.,  p.  274. 

2  Univers,  April  30,  1848. 

3  La  reforme,  April  2,  1848;  Univers ,  April  5. 

4  Univers,  May  4,  1848. 


I22  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [122 

ioners  to  vote  for  the  cure  or  the  bishop,  on  pain  of  refusing 
them  absolution.  And  that  after  giving  them  ballots  which 
they  had  marked,  they  conducted  them  to  the  polls  to  see  if 
they  really  cast  the  same  ones.1 

Nevertheless  it  would  be  difficult  to  estimate  precisely  the 
influence  which  the  Church  exerted  in  the  elections  of  the 
23rd  of  April,  1848.  Statistics  probably  do  not  exist  which 
would  permit  of  more  than  a  general  statement.  The  much- 
quoted  assertion  of  Debidour  to  the  effect  that  “  the  elec¬ 
tions,  from  whence  set  out,  the  23rd  of  April,  1848,  the 
Constituent  Assembly,  were  largely  the  work  of  the 
Church  ”,  is  probably  extreme.2  We  know  that  many  of 
the  clergy  who  stood  for  election,  as  well  as  some  of  their 
candidates,  were  defeated.3  On  the  other  hand  we  have 
the  statement  of  Bishop  Guibert  that,  in  his  diocese,  “  of 
the  eight  names  which  the  religious  committees  had  pre¬ 
sented,  seven,  in  spite  of  the  plots,  the  intrigues  and  the 
infamous  violence  exercised  by  the  commissioners  and  their 
agents,  were  successful.” 4  Daniel  Stern  also  states  that 
those  whom  the  Church  excluded  were  not  elected,  or  were 
elected  with  great  difficulty.5  We  shall  therefore  doubtless 
be  safe  in  asserting  that  the  Church  was  one  of  the  forces, 
and  that  by  no  means  the  least,  which,  in  the  elections  to 
the  Constituent  Assembly,  worked  for  the  moderate  re¬ 
public  in  opposition  to  socialism.  There  was  no  attempt 
on  the  part  of  the  Catholics  to  form  a  clerical  party.  Nor 

1  Le  Christ  republicain,  June  8,  1848. 

2  Debidour,  A.,  L’Eglise  et  I’etat  en  France  de  1789  a  1870  (Paris,  1911), 
2nd  ed.,  p.  485. 

3  Out  of  forty-two  members  of  the  clergy  who  were  candidates,  only 
fourteen  were  elected.  Cabane,  op.  cit.,  pp.  224-227.  Among  Catholic 
laymen,  both  Ozanam  and  Melun  were  defeated. 

4  Paguelle  de  Follenay,  op.  cit.,  vol.  ii,  p.  108. 

‘  Stern,  op.  cit.,  vol.  ii,  p.  194. 


REACTION  AGAINST  SOCIALISM 


123] 


123 


was  there,  at  least  before  the  15th  of  May,  1848,  any  dis¬ 
loyalty  to  the  Republic. 

The  party  representing  the  moderate  republic  having 
thus  been  established  in  power,  the  Catholics,  like  the  mod¬ 
erates  of  all  other  shades  of  opinion,  looked  for  stability 
and  peace.  “  The  whole  of  France  ”,  affirmed  the  Univers, 
“  aspires  only  after  order  and  civil  peace.”  But  the  truth 
could  not  be  concealed,  it  declared.  If  there  were  any  at¬ 
tempt  to  appeal  from  the  result  of  the  elections  to  the  mob 
on  the  street,  then  there  would  be  a  reaction.  “  France  in 
her  passion  for  order  would  sacrifice  liberty  to  obtain  it.”  1 
These  words  were  prophetic,  but  ominous  for  the  future  of 
the  Republic.  The  attempt  on  the  National  Assembly  of 
the  15th  of  May  was  the  beginning  of  the  disillusionment. 
“  This  violation  of  the  law  by  the  might  of  the  populace  ”, 
said  Melun,  “  made  all  my  confidence  wane,  and  that  day 
I  despaired  of  the  Republic.”  2  Lacordaire,  who  was  in 
the  Assembly  when  it  was  invaded  by  the  mob,  had  only 
one  thought :  “  The  Republic  is  lost.”  3  Three  days  later- 
he  resigned  his  seat  in  the  Assembly.  The  Ere  Nouvelle 
affirmed  that  the  15th  of  May  caused  the  birth  of  the  party 
of  reaction.4  It  is  certain  that  after  this  date  the  reaction 
against  socialism  grew  apace.  It  revealed  itself  in  the  criti¬ 
cism  of  the  organization  of  labor,  the  progressive  tax,  the 
state  purchase  of  the  railways,  and  in  the  suppression  of 
the  National  Workshops,  in  all  of  which  was  perceived  the 
attempt  of  socialism  to  dominate  society. 

As  early  as  the  beginning  of  April  the  Univers  had  begun 
its  attacks  on  the  schemes  of  Louis  Blanc,  which  were  being 


1  Univers,  April  30,  1848. 

2 Memoir es,  vol.  i,  p.  258.  “The  effect  which  this  attempt  had  on  me 
was  profound;  my  confidence  disappeared,  or  at  least  wavered;  the  June 
days  were  bound  to  destroy  it.  Ibid.,  p.  258. 

3  Foisset,  op.  cit.,  vol.  ii,  p.  189. 

Kkre  nouvelle,  May  19,  1848. 


124  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [124 

discussed  in  the  commission  of  the  Luxembourg,  of  which 
he  was  chairman.1  It  beheld  in  the  organization  of  labor 
only  a  wild  chimera  totally  opposed  to  the  best  interests  of 
the  workingmen.  Such  a  system  would  make  them  slaves 
of  the  state,  it  affirmed;  it  would  take  away  all  their  in¬ 
fluence  without  giving  them  higher  wages.2  In  its  ten¬ 
dency  to  make  the  state  the  sole  proprietor  and  capitalist, 
the  Univers  beheld  an  attack  on  private  property.  The 
Revue  Nationale,  the  journal  of  Buchez  and  Bastide,  the 
“  organ  of  Christian  Democracy  ”,  while  contending 
strongly  for  a  change  in  the  economic  system  of  France 
which  would  favor  the  workingman,  likewise  opposed  the 
scheme  of  Louis  Blanc.  It  found  it  philosophically  un¬ 
sound,  and  what  was  a  greater  defect,  impracticable.  As 
did  the  Univers,  it  perceived  in  the  organization  of  labor 
the  “  general  monopoly  by  the  state  ”,  “  the  tutelage  of  the 
whole  of  society  put  in  the  hands  of  the  executive  power  ”, 
the  result  of  which  would  be  calamitous  for  the  laborer.  It 
would  condemn  him  to  life  imprisonment  in  the  National 
Workshops;  it  would  take  away  from  him  his  free  will  and 
rob  him  of  all  creative  ability  and  responsibility — “  in  a 
word,  the  most  complete  intellectual  and  moral  degradation 
which  one  has  ever  seen.”  3  “  Strictly  speaking  ”,  said  the 

Ere  Nouvelle,  “  one  can  improvise  chaos,  but  one  will 
never  be  able  to  improvise  a  social  system.”  4 

The  progressive  tax  and  the  state  purchase  of  the  rail¬ 
ways  were  likewise  attacked.  “  The  progressive  tax,” 
said  the  Univers,  “  leads  to  communism  by  the  rapid  absorp¬ 
tion1  of  all  private  fortunes  by  the  state.”  5  But  not  only 

1  This  commission  had  been  a  sop  thrown  to  Louis  Blanc. 

2  Univers,  April  6,  1848. 

3  Revue  nationale,  April  6,  1848. 

4  kre  nouvelle,  May  31,  1848. 

6  Univers,  April  19. 


REACTION  AGAINST  SOCIALISM 


125 


does  it  affect  the  rich  at  whom  it  aims,  declared  the  Ere 
Nouvelle,  but  in  the  last  resort  “  it  falls  with  all  its  weight 
on  the  laboring  classes.  It  is  for  that  reason  that  we  reject 
it.”  1  Another  project  met  with  like  hostility  on  the  part 
of  the  Catholics.  This  was  the  absorption  of  the  railways 
by  the  state,  by  means  of  which  it  was  proposed  to  reestab¬ 
lish  public  credit,  and  at  the  same  time  give  employment  to 
the  army  of  “  demagogues  ”  who  were  causing  the  Re¬ 
public  so  much  concern.  Berryer,  Ravignan  and  the  Abbe 
Cazales  urged  Montalembert  to  “  denounce  this  danger 
He  did  so  with  alacrity  in  a  lengthy  speech  in  the  Assembly 
on  the  22nd  of  June,  in  which,  said  de  Tocqueville,  he  ex¬ 
celled  himself ; 2  for  he  perceived  in  the  proposed  scheme 
another  attempt  of  socialism  to  foist  itself  upon  society. 
“  I  find  in  this  project  ”,  he  said,  “  an  attack  on  the  right 
of  private  property,  which  is  the  base  of  all  society.”  3 

More  important  still,  however,  because  of  its  immediate 
consequences,  was  the  suppression  of  the  National  Work¬ 
shops,  which  had  been  instituted  at  the  beginning  of  March 
to  serve  a  double  purpose,  to  provide  work  for  the  unem¬ 
ployed  in  Paris,  and  to  discredit,  in  the  eyes  of  the  public, 
the  proposals  of  Louis  Blanc.4  Under  the  direction  of 
Emile  Thomas,  to  whom  their  construction  and  supervision 
had  been  intrusted,  they  became  a  mere  “  caricature  ”  of 
the  National  Workshops  as  Louis  Blanc  had  envisaged 
them.5  Contrary  to  his  project,  which  made  provision 
for  skill  and  ability  of  workmen,  the  employees,  skilled  and 
unskilled  alike;  were  engaged  in  work  which  often  had  no 
other  object  in  view  than  to  keep  them  out  of  idleness. 


1  kre  nouvelle,  April  28. 

’Lecanuet,  op.  cit.,  p.  404;  de  Tocqueville,  Souvenirs,  p.  210. 
3  Moniteur,  June  23,  1848. 

4Tchernoff,  Louis  Blanc,  pp.  75-76. 

5  Cf.  statement  of  Proudhon,  supra,  p.  80. 


I26  CATHOLICISM  and  second  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [i26 

Thus  constituted,  it  soon  became  apparent  that  the  National 
Workshops  were  merely  a  temporary  expedient  to  meet  the 
unemployment  crisis  that  accompanied  the  proclamation  of 
the  Republic  and  was  aggravated  by  it.  Such  was  the  opin¬ 
ion  of  the  Univers.  “  Everybody  understands  that  we 
could  not  allow  100,000  of  our  fellow  citizens  to  die  of 
hunger.  Direct  charity  would  have  had  evil  consequences : 
it  was  a  thousand  times  better  for  the  state  to  pay  these 
workmen  wages  for  work  which  kept  them  in  orderly 
habits/’ 1  “  Considered  in  themselves  ”,  said  the  Ere 

N ouveile,  “  the  National  W orkshops  were,  when  they  were 
established  [March  8],  one  of  the  necessities  before  which 
no  government  could  recoil.”  2 3  But  that  purpose  had  been 
fulfilled,  and  it  was  time  for  them  to  be  dissolved  and  to 
give  place  to  more  permanent  forms  of  organization.  “If 
anyone  imagines  that  material  forces  thus  accumulated  are 
going  to  bring  the  sudden  realization  of  any  utopia  what¬ 
soever,  he  is  much  mistaken.”  8  To  the  Univers,  if  the 
National  Workshops  have  disproved  the  theories  of  the 
socialists,  they  will  have  justified  themselves.  “  A  hundred 
millions  expended  to  illustrate  a  great  social  truth,  and  to 
snatch  our  fellow-citizens  from  fatal  illusions  would  be 
well  spent  ”.4  Not  only,  however,  did  the  leading  Catholic 
papers  of  both  liberal  and  conservative  tendencies  call  for 
the  suppression  of  the  National  Workships,  but  a  prominent 
Catholic  and  legitimist,  the  Comte  de  Falloux,  played  an 
active  role  in  the  act  of  suppression.  As  reporter  for  the 
Assembly’s  commission  of  inquiry  Falloux  denounced  them 
as  hot-beds  of  sedition  and  of  immorality  as  well  as  a 


1  Univers,  June  1. 

2  Ere  nouvelle,  May  31. 

3  Ibid. 

4  Univers,  April  1,  1848. 


REACTION  AGAINST  SOCIALISM 


1 27 


1 27] 

burden  to  the  state,  and  called  for  their  transformation.1} 
Not,  however,  until  the  211st  of  June  was  it  definitely  decided 
to  abolish  them.2  That  act  was  the  signal  for  the  Insurrec¬ 
tion  of  June. 

This  insurrection,  which  Falloux  has  described  as 
causing  the  loss  of  more  generals  than  the  most  celebrated 
battles  of  the  Empire,  and  which  wrought  the  death  of 
Monseigneur  Afire,  the  greatly  revered  Archbishop  of 
Paris,  marked  the  crystallization  of1  the  reaction  against 
socialism  on  the  part  of  the  Catholics,  a  reaction  which  was 
furthered  by  the  events  that  were  transpiring  at  Rome.3 

This  reaction  against  socialism  after  the  June  Days  caused 
the  Catholics  to  adopt  two  different  attitudes.  On  the  one 
hand,  the  more  liberal,  the  Social  Catholics,  while  taking 
care  to  distinguish  themselves  from  the  socialists  and  their 
theories,  perceived,  nevertheless,  the  necessity  of  radical  re¬ 
forms  in  the  social  order.  On  the  other  hand,  the  more 
conservative  began  to  denounce,  not  only  socialists  but  also 
the  more  liberal  Catholics,  whom  they  accused  of  com¬ 
pacting  with  socialism.  It  is  within  this  latter  group  that 
one  perceives  the  beginning  of  the  reaction  against  re¬ 
publicanism.'4  ! 

1  “  The  man  who  exercised  in  these  evil  days  the  decisive  influence, 
he  who  .  .  .  contributed  the  most  to  bring  the  minds,  in  the  commission 
at  first,  then  in  the  Assembly,  to  this  way  of  thinking  .  .  .  was  incon¬ 
testably  M.  de  Falloux.  He  was  at  this  time  the  chief,  the  most  eloquent, 
the  only  courageous  mouthpiece  of  the  reaction.  His  name  remains 
connected  with  the  disastrous  measure  of  violent  dissolution  which 
threw  the  National  Workshops  into  insurrection.”  iStern,  op.  cit.,  p. 
359.  This  is  supported  by  Melun,  who  was  an  intimate  friend  of 
Falloux.  “It  was  owing  to  the  energy  of  Falloux  that  the  National 
Workshops  were  closed.”  Memoir es,  vol.  i,  p.  258.  In  justice  to 
Falloux,  however,  it  should  be  said  that  he  was  heartily  in  favor  of 
Melun’s  projects.  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  24. 

2  De  la  Gorce,  Histoire  de  la  seconde  republique  frangaise,  8th  ed. 
(Paris,  1919),  vol.  i,  pp.  326-327. 

3  Cf.  Mourret,  op.  cit.,  pp.  249  et  seq. 

4  Ibid.,  pp.  250. 


I28  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [128 

The  Social  Catholics  were  lovers  of  order  and  stability 
no  less  than  the  conservatives;  but  they  perceived  that  that 
end  could  be  achieved  only  through  progress.  “  Order  is 
as  impossible  without  progress  as  progress  is  without 
order  ”,  declared  the  Revue  Nationale.1  There  should 
therefore  be  no  cessation  of  the  work  of  social  amelioration. 

The  frightful  struggle  of  which  Paris  has  just  been  the  scene 
[said  the  same  journal]  is  a  great  lesson  for  the  whole  of 
France.  ...  It  demonstrates  that  it  is  urgent  that  the  social 
question  receive  a  solution,  ...  a  prompt  and  energetic  remedy. 
.  .  .  Far  from  believing,  then,  that  the  victory  gained  over  the 
insurrection  has  repelled  the  social  question,  we  think,  on  the 
contrary,  that  it  has  placed  it  in  a  truer  light.2 

Nevertheless  they  were  far  from  accepting  the  socialist  solu¬ 
tion  of  the  difficulty. 

Everyone  knows  [said  the  Ere  Nouvelle ]  that  the  sufferings 
of  the  people  have  given  birth  in  some  diseased  minds  to 
theories  subversive  of  property,  of  the  family,  of  liberty: 
theories  which  would  bring  a  general  misery  and  a  universal 
slavery,  which  would  make  the  state  into  a  frightful  machine, 
capable  of  destroying  the  human  species.  .  .  .  However,  com¬ 
munism  in  itself  and  as  a  future  social  ideal  does  not  inspire 
in  us  the  least  fear;  it  is  in  too  flagrant  contradiction  with  all 
the  laws,  all  the  instincts,  all  the  needs  of  our  nature.  But 
it  is  capable  of  agitating  the  streets  and  of  imbrueing  them 
with  blood:  it  is  able  momentarily  to  compromise  the  most 
sacred  interests.  There  is  then  a  great  danger  against  which 
it  is  necessary  to  guard.3 

The  Social  Catholics  perceived  that  the  way  to  avoid  this 
danger  was  to  undermine  the  position  of  the  socialists  by 

1  Revue  nationale,  June  28,  1848. 

*  Ibid. 

*  Ere  nouvelle,  September  18,  1848. 


REACTION  AGAINST  SOCIALISM 


129 


adopting  a  saner  and  more  practicable  socialism  than  the 
latter. 


Let  us  make  socialists  out  of  ourselves  since  it  is  the  hobby  of 
the  century;  let  us  inaugurate  a  real  and  peaceable  socialism 
which  does  not  impose  itself  by  means  of  musket-shots.  .  .  . 
It  is  incontestable  .  .  .  that  socialism,  left  in  the  hands  of  these 
dangerous  apostles,  is  a  terrible  arm  suspended  over  the  head 
of  society  ...  let  us  unfold  in  our  turn  the  marvelous  pros¬ 
pects  of  a  Christian  society,  and  we  shall  have  the  consolation 
of  restoring  to  ourselves  so  many  young  men  of  good  faith  lost 
in  the  pandemonium  of  false  socialism.1 

Furthermore,  not  to  have  some  solution  for  the  pressing 
problem  of  the  time  to  oppose  to  socialism  would  mean  that 
Catholicism  would  have  to  abdicate  its  influence.  “  When 
the  most  shallow  utopian  has  his  plan  of  social  reorganiza¬ 
tion  to  offer  to  a  people  which  suffers  and  seeks,  Catholic¬ 
ism  would  have  only  a  secondary  role  to  fill,  if  it  alone 
were  doomed  to  sterility.”  2 

But  the  best  expression  of  this  constructive  side  of  Social 
Catholicism,  in  its  opposition  to  socialism,  was  found  in 
the  program  of  Melun,  which  has  already  been  discussed.3 
Melun  found  socialism  impracticable;  for  it  would  have 
to  be  inaugurated  by  an  universal  robbery,  which  would 
be  a  singular  beginning  for  a  reign  of  fraternity  and  justice. 
The  socialistic  regime,  as  its  apostles  proposed  it,  would 
impose  sacrifices  on  the  whole  of  France  for  the  advantage 
of  a  few  great  industrial  centers.  Its  Spartan  legislation 
and  its  rigid  regulation  of  the  details  of  the  lives  of  indi¬ 
viduals  would  spell  the  destruction  of  liberty,  which  would 
be  flagrantly  inconsistent  with  democracy.  In  such  a 

1  Bazin,  Maret,  vol.  i,  p.  295. 

5  Pierre  Pradie  in  kre  nouvelle,  October  19,  1848. 

3  Supra,  chap.  ii. 


!30  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [130 

sysitem,  he  declared,  “  individual  peculiarities  are  confused, 
personality  is  effaced,  and  the  man  disappears  in  the  social 
pantheism.”  “  To  describe  such  ideas,”  said  Melun,  “is 
sufficient  to  refute  them.”  But  furthermore,  socialism  has 
forfeited  the  right  to  attack  the  present  constitution  of 
society  whatever  its  evils  may  be;  for  it  has  given  France 
more  wounds — the  reference  is  to  the  June  Days — than  it 
has  received  from  all  the  systems  which  socialism  has  at¬ 
tacked.1  The  end  that  socialism  sought  for  society  by 
means  of  “  utopian  doctrines  of  phalanstery  ”,2  the  Social 
Catholics  wished  to  achieve  through  “  Christianity  and  the 
Gospel  ”.3 

On  the  other  hand  the  Insurrection  of  June  caused  the 
more  conservative  amongst  the  Catholics  to  adopt  a  hostile 
attitude  towards  any  attempt  at  amelioration  of  the  con¬ 
dition  of  the  working-classes  that  bore  any  resemblance  to 
the  proposals  of  the  socialists.4  This  phase  of  the  reac¬ 
tion  against  socialism  began  to  manifest  itself  in  the  Univers 
almost  immediately  after  the  June  days.  What  was  the 
cause  of  unrest  that  had  ended  in  the  barricades  of  Paris? 

1  Melun,  De  V intervention  de  la  societe  pour  prevenir  et  soulager  la 
miser e  (Paris,  1849),  chap.  ii. 

2  The  reference  is  to  Fourier’s  phalanstere,  or  communistic  reorganiza¬ 
tion  of  society. 

8  Melun,  Memoires,  vol.  i,  p.  261. 

4  “  The  workmen,  during  the  Days  of  June,  had  raised  the  banner 
of  socialism,  which  too  often  the  conservatives  confused  with  the  very 
legitimate  and  practical  aspirations  of  charity;  the  reaction  rapidly  in¬ 
creased  and  went  beyond  its  purpose;  works  of  charity  were  almost  al¬ 
ways  suspected  of  complicity  with  the  dreams  of  the  phalanstery  of 
Louis  Blanc  and  of  Cabet.”  Melun,  Memoir es,  vol.  ii,  p.  25.  “  In  short 
they  were  so  hostile  against  all  that  which,  near  or  far,  recalled  the 
doctrines  and  the  interests  in  the  name  of  which  had  just  been  declared 
a  very  savage  war  that,  as  General  Cavaignac  said  to  me  one  day, 

‘  one  was  likely  to  be  denounced  as  a  socialist,  if  one  were  seen  giving 
five  centimes  to  a  beggar.’  ”  Ibid.,  pp.  25-26. 


REACTION  AGAINST  SOCIALISM 


131] 


I31 


The  Social  Catholics,  like  the  socialists,  perceived  it,  as 
we  have  seen,  in  the  condition  of  the  working-classes,  which 
they  therefore  sought  to  improve.  But  not  so  the  Univers. 
They  search  for  the  solution  of  the  problem  where  no  solu¬ 
tion  exists,  it  asserted.  “  The  question  has  been  resolved 
by  the  Church  which  has  never  bothered  with  political 
economy.”  1  “  The  malady  is  in  the  soul  ”,  it  affirmed;  “  it 

is  necessary  to  apply  the  remedy  there.”  2  What  then  was 
the  message  of  the  Univers  to  the  working  classes?  “  To 
live  meagrely  by  means  of  a  precarious  employment,  that 
is  nothing:  it  is  thus  that  the  greater  part  of  humanity  has 
lived,  and  always  will  live.  God  has  made  this  law  with¬ 
out  which  society  would  be  impossible.  Man  must  there¬ 
fore  submit  to  it.”  3  Montalembert  and  Louis  Veuillot 

;  .  ,  .  . .  rT,,  TT  .  “  ,  wmmM 

were  m  accord  m  this  respect,  ihe  Univers  of  the  19th  of 
September,  in  denouncing  the  theories  that  promised  men  a 
paradise  on  earth,  quoted  with  approval  a  statement  of  the 
former,  that  “  work  is  a  punishment.”  Under  the  reign  of 
socialism  men  were  taught  that  the  chief  end  of  life  was  “  to 
enjoy  and  to  despise”;  but  if  society  were  to  escape  the 
perils  that  threatened  it  with  destruction,  it  would  be  neces¬ 
sary  to  return  to  the  “  religious  doctrine  ”,  which  was  re¬ 
sumed  by  two  other  words,  by  means  of  which  society 
had  long  lived,  “  forbear  and  respect.”  4  But  the  Univers 
reached  the  climax  of  its  reactionary  doctrine  when,  in  its 
issue  of  the  12th  of  February,  1849,  it  stated:  Society  has 
need  of  slaves.  It  can  exist  only  at  such  a  cost.  It  is  neces¬ 
sary  that  there  be  some  men  who  work  much  and  live  little. 


1  Univers,  September  9,  1848;  cf.  Joly,  op.  cit.,  p.  227;  Calippe,  L’ Atti¬ 
tude  sociale,  vol.  iii,  p.  33. 

1  Univers,  July  3,  1848. 

3  Ibid.,  July  7. 

4  Montalembert,  speaking  in  the  Constitution  Assembly,  September  18, 
1848.  Moniteur,  September  19;  cf.  Joly,  op.  cit.,  p.  228. 


I32  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [132 

They  play  the  role  in  society  which  the  various  members 
of  the  human  body  do  in  the  life  of  the  individual,  obeying 
the  brain  which  is  idle  in  appearance.”  1  Let  the  working¬ 
man  therefore  be  content  with  his  lot. 

This  reaction  against  anything  that  savored  of  socialism 
found  concrete  expression  in  the  warfare  that  began  in  the 
latter  part  of  1848  against  the  Ere  Nouvelle  and  its  doctrines, 
a  warfare  which  ended  only  with  the  withdrawal  of  the  orig¬ 
inal  editors  on  the  5th  of  April,  1849,  when  it  fell  into  reac- 

1  This  doctrinal  reaction  against  socialism  seems  to  have  been  quite 
widespread.  “Christianity  does  not  preach  an  erroneous  doctrine  of 
man  when  it  says  to  him  that  suffering  here  below  is  a  necessity  of 
his  condition,  an  indispensable  element  of  the  trial  which  he  has  to 
experience.  No  !  it  does  not  seek  to  deceive  him,  or  to  demean  him 
when  it  offers  resignation  as  the  basis  of  virtue,  and  a  relief  for  the  ills 
of  which  he  complains.”  Bishop  of  Bayeux:  Mandate  for  Lent,  Ami 
de  la  religion,  February  27,  1849.  The  Ami  de  la  religion  quoted  with 
approval  the  words  of  Thiers  from  his  book  Sur  la  propriete:  “ .  .  .  . 
religion  says  to  you :  suffer,  suffer  with  humility,  with  patience,  with 
hope,  in  looking  up  to  God  who  awaits  you  and  will  recompense  you.” 
Oct.  19,  1848.  “  Be  resigned  to  a  laborious  poverty,”  counseled  Mon- 
talembert,  “  and  you  will  receive  eternal  reward  and  compensation. 
That  is  what  it  (the  Church)  for  a  thousand  years  has  said  to  the  poor; 
and  they  have  believed  it  until  the  day  when  their  faith  has  been 
snatched  from  their  hearts,  immediately  after  which  the  horror  of  the 
social  state  has  entered.”  Moniteur,  September  19,  1848.  “  The  present 

world  is  one  which  religion  alone  is  able  to  heal.  Allow  it  to  handle 
the  rich ;  it  will  cure  them  of  egotism ;  it  will  develop  in  their  hearts 
feelings  of  compassion  and  of  generosity.  Allow  it  to  deal  with  the 
poor :  it  will  cure  them  of  license,  of  idleness,  of  debauchery ;  it  will 
inspire  in  them  the  love  of  work,  of  order,  of  economy,  Christian  re¬ 
signation,  respect  for  property,  loyalty,  gratitude.”  Abbe  J.  Laffetay, 
Canon  of  Bayeux,  L’universite  Catholique,  September,  1848.  The  Ami 
de  la  religion  finds  the  following  causes  for  socialism,:  (1)  Deism  or 
the  negation  of  all  revealed  religion  ;  (2)  Materialism,  or  the  negation 
of  the  immortality  of  the  soul  and  of  the  punishments  and  rewards 
of  an  other  life;  (3)  Pantheism,  or  the  negation  of  God  such  as  the 
world  has  always  believed  in  and  worshipped;  (4)  rationalistic  ethics, 
or  the  ethics  of  the  state;  (5)  the  cause  embracing  all  the  others:  state 
education,  or  the  monopoly  of  the  University.  October,  1848. 


REACTION  AGAINST  SOCIALISM 


133 


133] 

tionary  hands.1  The  campaign  was  begun  by  a  series  of 
letters  which  Montalembert  published  in  the  Ami  de  la  Re¬ 
ligion  shortly  after  that  periodical  passed  under  the  direction 
and  editorship  of  the  Abbe  Dupanloup.  In  the  first  letter 
[October  19,  1848]  after  affirming  that  Society  had  no 
worse  enemy  today  than  socialism,  he  went  on  to  say : 

if  the  socialistic  contagion  should  even  encroach  upon  the 
children  of  the  Church,  if  a  portion  of  our  Catholic  youth  had 
the  misfortune  to  open  its  mind  or  its  heart  to  these  fallacious 
doctrines,  truly  then  the  evil  would  seem  irreparable  .  .  .  and 
there  would  remain  nothing  more  to  do  than  to  weep  over  the 
ruins  of  a  society  condemned  to  die  within  the  embrace  of  an 
incurable  anarchy.2 

The  second  letter  appeared  on  the  23rd  of  October,  and 
although  it  did  not  mention  the  Ere  N ouvelle  by  name,  it  was 
evident  to  all  that  he  was  referring  to  that  paper  and  its  doc¬ 
trines. 

Why  is  it  that  such  aberrations  [he  complained,  referring  to 
socialist  tenets]  have  met  amongst  us,  certainly  not  accomplices, 
but  sometimes  dupes,  and  more  often  still  involuntary  instru¬ 
ments?  Why  should  men,  of  whom  several  are  endeared  to 
Catholics  by  their  virtues,  their  character,  their  talents  and 
their  eloquence,  have  believed  that,  in  order  the  better  to  serve 
the  interests  of  the  democracy  to  which  they  are  devoted,  they 
could  lend  an  indirect  cooperation  with  some  of  these  errors.3 

On  the  30th  of  November,  Montalembert  wrote  a  third 
letter,  addressed  to  A.  M.  Bonnetty,  the  editor  of  the 
Universite  Catholique f  requesting  him  to  publish  his  two 
previous  letters  in  that  periodical.  In  this  letter  he  took  oc- 

1  Bazin,  op.  cit.,  vol.  i,  p.  355. 

2  Ami  de  la  religion,  October  19,  1848. 

3‘ Ibid.,  October  23,  1848. 


1  34  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [134 

casion  to  say  that  all  that  had  transpired  since  he  wrote 
the  letter  in  question — the  reference  is  to  the  events  at 
Rome — had  but  confirmed  him  in  his  conviction  and  in 
his  resolution  to  combat  the  errors  which  he  had  mentioned. 

In  the  replies  which  have  been  addressed  to  me  by  the  Demo¬ 
cratic  Pacifique  and  the  Ere  Nouvelle  [he  continued]  no  one 
will  have  found  anything  of  a  nature  to  allay  my  fears  or  to 
modify  my  apprehensions.  In  France  the  socialists  do  not 
hold  a  banquet  without  drinking  a  blasphemous  toast  to  Christ, 
as  the  first  author  of  their  doctrines ;  and  they  boast  of  having 
accomplices  amongst  the  clergy !  In  Italy  we  have  had  demon¬ 
strated  to  us  the  practical  application  of  this  theory  of  the 
flatterers  of  the  people,  which  substitutes  for  the  alliance  of 
throne  with  altar  the  confusion  of  Christianity  with  democracy. 
They  cry  in  the  streets  Vive  Jesus-Christ ,  demo  crate  and  with 
the  aid  of  the  democratic  dagger  which  slew  Rossi 1  they 
demolish  the  sacred  principate,  which  for  a  thousand  years  has 
been  the  bulwark  of  the  liberty  and  of  the  dignity  of  the  Church. 

These  sad  doctrines  which  have  just  burst  amongst  us,  he 
concluded,  threatened  with  destruction  both  Catholic  truth 
and  the  whole  social  order.  The  Correspondant  likewise 
felt  that  some  had  affirmed  a  little  too  prematurely  the  al¬ 
liance  of  Christianity  with  democracy.  But  as  it  was  not 
quite  as  ready  as  the  other  journals  to  deny  democracy  any 
relation  with  Christianity,  it  affirmed  that  the  idea  of  de¬ 
mocracy  united  itself  intimately  with  Christianity  in  the 
sense  that  no  democracy  was  possible  without  the  bridle  of 
the  Christian  law.2 

The  battle  against  the  Ere  Nouvelle  and  its  doctrines  was 
taken  up  by  the  Univers  and  by  some  of  the  clergy  as  well 
as  by  the  Ami  de  la  Religion.  On  the  17th  of  January, 

1  Cf.  infra,  chap.  iv. 

*  Correspondant,  October  28,  1848. 


REACTION  AGAINST  SOCIALISM 


x35  ] 


135 


1849,  a  grand  vicar  of  Poitiers  wrote  to  a  subscriber  of 
the  paper  in  question :  “  It  appears  that  you  receive  .  .  .  . 
a  very  bad  journal:  I  urge  you,  in  your  own  interests  and 
in  those  of  the  Church,  to  cease  all  perusal  of  this  sheet. 
You  have  no  need  to  create  penalties  for  yourself  for  the 
future.  There  are  always  enough  in  this  life..” 1  The 
bishop  of  Montauban,  hearing  that  several  of  the  profes¬ 
sors  of  the  Seminary  of  Montauban  were  subscribers  to 
the  periodical  in  question,  wrote  to  the  Superior  expressing 
his  disapproval  and  the  hope  that  they  would  abandon  it. 
Not  content,  however,  with  forbidding  his  clergy  to  read 
the  Ere  Nouvelle,  he  wrote  a  letter  condemning  its  doctrines. 
“  I  insist  on  regarding  as  false  ”,  he  affirmed,  “  as  extremely 
dangerous,  as  founded  almost  always  on  equivocations  and 
on  ideas  badly  determined,  the  majority  of  the  applications 
which  the  Ere  Nouvelle  makes  of  Christian  principles  to 
the  social  democratic  state.”  2 *  But  the  most  virulent  at¬ 
tack  came  from  the  Ami  de  la  Religion .8 

There  is  in  the  Parisian  press  [it  stated]  a  paper  which  for 
several  months  has  been  astonishing  and  profoundly  grieving 
the  Church.  This  paper  has  won  a  deplorable  renown  by  the 
temerity  of  its  doctrines  and  the  errors  of  political  conduct  into 
which  it  has  allowed  itself  to  be  dragged.  It  is  the  Ere 
Nouvelle. 


Not  only  did  the  Ami  de  la  Religion  deplore  the  pernicious 
doctrines  of  the  Ere  Nouvelle,  but  it  expressed  itself  as 
being  deeply  pained  when  it  beheld  it 

sympathizing  in  the  name  of  Catholicism  with  the  revolution¬ 
aries  of  the  whole  world,  almost  always  shutting  its  eyes  to  the 

1  Bazin,  op.  cit.,  vol.  i,  p.  317. 

2  Ibid.,  pp.  317-318. 

5  Ami  de  la  religion,  March  31,  1849. 


I36  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [136 

shameful  excess  of  demagogism,  perceiving  in  the  frightful 
commotions  which  threatened  to  throw  Europe  back  into  bar¬ 
barism  only  the  pardonable  incidents  and  the  inevitable  con¬ 
ditions  of  progess  and  of  modern  transformations;  having  only 
bitter  words  for  the  governments  forced  to  oppose  armed 
resistance  to  the  brutal  violence  of  the  revolution  and  of  the 
assassin. 

The  Ami  de  la  Religion  was  at  a  loss  to  know  what  to  say 
concerning  “  this  strange  illusion  ”  which  made  men  see 
in  the  “  most  detestable  dreams  of  socialism  the  holy  spirit 
of  Gospel  charity.”  It  accused  the  Ere  Nouvelle  of  sympa¬ 
thizing  with  the  revolution  in  Rome.  “  The  murder  of 
Rossi,  the  siege  of  the  Quirinal,  the  expulsion  of  the  holy 
and  august  Pius  IX,  that  shameful  and  sacrilegious  parody 
played  by  some  actors  and  infamous  spoliators  who  call 
themselves  the  Roman  Republic  ”  :  all  that  the  Ere  Nouvelle 
would  have  us  accept  as  a  work  of  emancipation! 

But  the  reaction  against  socialism  went  further  still  and 
condemned  the  very  idea  of  state  relief,  or  the  attempt  of 
society  as  a  whole  to  prevent  or  assuage  poverty.  In  his 
letter  of  the  23rd  of  October,  1848,  to  the  Ami  de  la  Re¬ 
ligion,  Montalembert  had  complained  that  the  Social  Catho¬ 
lics  had  affirmed  “  that  private  charity  was  a  humiliation 
for  the  recipient,  and  that  they  prepared  the  way  for  the 
organization  of  relief  (by  the  hand  of  the  state.”  1  The 
Univers  took  up  the  same  complaint  in  a  series  of  articles 
which  reviewed  Melun’s  book  on  the  Intervention  of  Society. 

We  do  not  pretend  to  refute  all  the  false  principles,  all  the 
impracticable  proposals  of  our  publicist  [it  stated]  .  .  .  But 
we  believe  that  he  begins  with  a  radically  false  principle  and 
that  he  leads  to  a  result  completely  opposed  to  the  'Catholic 
spirit.  ...  We  are  persuaded  that  his  system  contains  the  most 


1  Bazin,  op.  cit.,  vol.  i,  p.  275. 


REACTION  AGAINST  SOCIALISM 


1 37 


137] 

direct  and  the  most  obvious  attack  that,  for  a  long  time,  has 
been  directed  against  the  rights  of  the  Church,  which  rights 
are  the  salvation  of  society.  That  was  a  sad  phrase  “  education 
ought  to  be  laic.”  M.  de  Melun  would  readily  modify  this 
grievous  aphorism  in  saying:  “  charity  ought  to  be  laic.”  .  .  .  . 
We  remain  convinced  that  charity,  even  more  than  instruction, 
ought  to  be  unrestricted,  and  that,  in  order  to  be  effective,  it 
should  be  religious.  We  affirm  that  the  Church  alone  is  able 
to  teach  devotion  and  resignation,  and  that  the  religious  orders 
are  chiefly  designed  to  instill  these  teachings  into  the  heart  of 
society,  to  give  to  the  poor  as  to  the  rich  this  double  example  of 
which  they  have  so  much  need,  and  the  practise  of  which  is 
alone  able  to  maintain  society.  We  regard  as  dangerous  and 
as  revolutionary  every  proposal  that  tends  to  obstruct  and  re¬ 
strain  the  action  of  the  Church,  already  so  restricted,  and  to 
withdraw  from  its  domain  so  many  souls  whose  safety  has  been 
intrusted  to  it.  ...  We  spurn,  therefore,  the  theories  and  the 
systems  of  de  Melun,  because  this  direction,  which  he  pro¬ 
poses  to  put  into  the  hands  of  the  state,  tends  inevitably  to 
substitute  the  action  of  the  state  for  that  of  the  Church. 
We  are  persuaded  that  public  assistance  would  not  be 
long  in  assuming  the  appearance  and  the  proportions  of  the 
University.  ...  1 

Melun’s  proposals  also  seemed  to  be  conceding  too  much 
to  socialism.  “  Such  concessions,  made  to  contemporary 
theories  ”,  said  the  Univers  referring  to  his  program,  “  ap¬ 
pear  dangerous  to  us.”  “  The  new  project  of  intervention 
[ Melun  s]  to  prevent  and  relieve  poverty  allies  itself  ”  with 

1  Leon  Aubineau,  Univers,  June  16  and  25,  1849.  The  Univers,  said 
Melun,  “  discharged  against  my  poor  little  pages,  which  I  had  con¬ 
scientiously  written  in  the  hope  that  they  would  do  a  little  good,  three 
long  articles  which  accused  me:  (1)  of  wishing  completely  to  sacrifice 
private  to  legal  charity;  (2)  of  excluding  from  the  latter  the  action  of 
religious  congregations;  (3)  of  wishing  to  gain  by  these  flatteries  to 
the  men  and  ideas  of  the  day,  a  general  supervision  over,  and  even  a 
ministry  of  public  assistance.”  Memoires,  vol.  i,  pp.  265-266. 


!^8  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [138 

all  the  absurd  hatreds  of  socialism.  The  Univers  therefore 
rejected  the  idea  of  public  assistance,  which  seemed  likely 
only  to  increase  rather  than  to  allay  the  existing  evil; 
and  it  published  with  complete  approval  an  article  from 
the  Union  Franc-Comtoise,  entitled  Les  Socialistes  sans 
le  S avoir.1  Piroudhon,  said  the  author  of  this  article, 
“  with  that  free  and  vigorous  logic  which  leaves  nothing 
in  the  shadow,”  has  made  this  declaration  regarding  public 
assistance:  “With  this  right  to  assistance  I  will  overturn 
society.” 

He  was  a  hundred  times  right;  but  I  perceive  some  of  his 
accomplices  amongst  his  adversaries.  .  .  .  Beware  of  the  un¬ 
conscious  socialists.  All  those  who,  for  any  purpose  and  actu¬ 
ated  by  any  motive  whatsoever,  wish  to  magnify  the  inter¬ 
vention  of  society  in  the  relations  of  men  with  each  other,  and 
who  strive  to  supplant  and,  above  all,  to  absorb  individual  ef¬ 
forts  and  merits  by  state  action,  are  falling  down  a  very  slippery 
declivity  into  communism.  To  substitute  the  community  for 
the  individual  and  to  slay  liberty :  the  whole  of  socialism  is 
there ;  it  is  at  once  the  idea  and  the  actuality.  That  those  whoi 
perceive  it  and  wish  it,  should  work  to  lead  the  nation  to  such  an 
end,  is  natural ;  but  it  would  be  deplorable  if  the  present  de¬ 
fenders  of  society  should  become  their  dupes  and  their  ac¬ 
complices.  The  socialism  which  acknowledges  itself  to  be 
such  and  which  marches  with  flag  unfurled,  has  been  con¬ 
quered  so  far.  But  I  am  not  sure  but  what  the  unconscious 
socialists  are  the  chief  danger  of  the  moment. 

The  project  of  Melun  to  solve  the  social  question  by 
means  of  public  assistance  met  with  opposition  in  the 
Legislative  Assembly  as  well  as  in  the  press.  Once  elected 
to  that  Assembly  Melun  made  it  a  point  to  have  created 
a  commission  which  would  prepare  laws  embodying  his 
ideas  on  state  relief.  The  Assembly  voted  the  commission 


1  Univers,  July  31,  1849. 


REACTION  AGAINST  SOCIALISM 


139 


139] 

without  much  difficulty;  but  the  nomination  of  its  members 
met  with  opposition  from  an  unexpected  source.  What 
was  Melun’s  astonishment  and  dismay  when  he  saw  Ber- 
ryer,  whom  he  described  as  the  “  best  and  most  amiable 
of  colleagues  ”,  get  up  to  combat  the  whole  scheme.1  He 
argued  that  the  time  was  inopportune  to  deal  with  social 
questions;  it  would  therefore  be  better  to  postpone  all  such 
discussion  for  a  more  stable  regime  when  they  would  be 
likely  to  bring  France  calm  and  peace.2  Indeed  the  As¬ 
sembly  and  the  commission  as  well  contained  a  party,  which, 
in  face  of  the  peril  of  socialism  and  the  alarm  which  it  had 
caused,  wished  to  forestall  all  legislative  action  dealing  with 
public  assistance.3  This  party  was  headed  by  Thiers. 
“  Striding  like  a  giant  ”  over  all  the  propositions  for  public 
relief,  which  since  the  proclamation  of  the  Republic  had 
been  suggested  either  in  the  press  or  the  Assembly,  “  he 
sabred  them  all  with  the  vigor  of  his  irony  ”,  and  invited 
the  commission  to  follow  him  in  his  merciless  proscription 
of  all  the  aberrations  of  the  day.4  Relief  was,  according  to 
this  party,  to  be  left  in  the  hands  of  private  individuals, 
and  above  all  confided  to  the  Church.  Amongst  the  fol¬ 
lowing  of  Thiers  was  Monseigneur  Parisis,  the  bishop  of 
Langres,  who  sought  to  make  the  Church  “  Mistress  of 
Charity  ”  as  it  had  been  under  the  old  regime.5  It  seemed 
to  him  a  deplorable  error  that  Melun  should  seek  to  put 
the  “  mayor  above  the  cure  in  Christian  charity.”  Social 
legislation  appeared  to  him  to  be  a  restriction  placed  upon 
liberty.  Melun  “  confounds  society  with  the  government  ”, 

1  Memoires,  vol.  ii,  p.  47. 

2  Ibid. 

sIbid.,  pp.  49-50. 

4  Ibid .,  p.  51. 

5  Dreyfus,  F.,  L’ Assistance  sous  la  seconde  republique  (Paris,  1907), 
P-  133- 


140  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [140 

he  declared.  His  “  program  is  conceived  and  directed  as 
if  the  Church  did  not  exist  ”,  he  complained.  “  The  system 
of  the  author  is  that  the  state  may  have  the  initiative  and 
the  chief  control  of  all  charitable  work,  and  that  all  other 
agents  come  to  its  aid.  .  .  1  In  spite  of  this  opposition, 

however,  the  Social  Catholics  succeeded  in  having  some  use¬ 
ful  measures  enacted.2  Nevertheless  the  work  of  the  com¬ 
mission  was  not  finished  to  the  satisfaction  of  Melun.  It 
was  his  desire  to  bring  it  to  a  conclusion  by  a  general  re¬ 
port  on  its  accomplishments,  which  should  be  an  expression 
of  the  principles  necessary  for  the  resolution  of  the  labor 
problems  of  the  time.3  Thiers,  after  some  debate,  was  en¬ 
trusted  with  the  task  of  making  the  report;  and  he  em¬ 
ployed  all  the  resources  of  argument  and  eloquence  in 
combating  every  idea  of  relief  save  private  charity.  The 
ideas  of  Melun  were  thought  to  be  too  great  a  concession  to 
socialism,  and  consequently  were  unacceptable  to  the  As¬ 
sembly.  He  was  treated  as  a  socialist  by  the  majority 
with  whom  he  voted;  as  a  naive  philanthropist  by  the  great 
politicians ;  and  as  an  enemy  of  private  and  religious  charity 
by  the  bishops  and  the  Catholics.4 

But  the  reaction  against  socialism  also  led  to  an  alliance 
of  the  Parti  Catholique  with  the  Club  of  the  Rue  de 
Poitiers ,  which  had  become  the  center  of  the  political  reac¬ 
tion.  Founded  in  the  early  part  of  May,  1848,  after  the 
meeting  of  the  Constituent  Assembly,  by  the  deputies  who 
were  without  parliamentary  experience  and  who  had  be¬ 
longed  to  no  previous  assembly,  the  Club  of  the  Rue  de 

1  These  are  annotations  which  Mgr.  Parisis  made  on  a  copy  of 
Mel  tin's  Intervention  de  la  societe,  which  is  now  in  the  Archives 
Nationales,  dossier  169,  no.  3. 

2  Dreyfus,  op.  cit. 

3  Memoires,  vol.  ii,  p.  56. 

*  Melun  to  Falloux,  December  4,  1849,  Correspondant,  1882,  p.  661. 


REACTION  AGAINST  SOCIALISM 


141] 


141 


Poitiers  had  at  first  excluded  the  old  parliamentarians  of 
previous  regimes.1  The  June  Days,  however,  changed  the 
nature  of  this  club.  “  Frightened  by  its  isolation  and  its 
responsibility  ”,  it  came  under  the  leadership  of  Mole,  Ber- 
ryer,  Montalembert,  and  above  all,  of  Thiers,  who  hence¬ 
forth,  if  we  can  believe  his  own  statement,  was  its  virtual 
ruler  as  it  was  his  chief  means  of  influencing  the  Assembly.2 
“  All  ranks,  all  shades  of  opinion,  here  mingled  with  the 
sole  desire  to  defend  civilization  ”  against  socialism.  Thus 
transformed,  the  Club  of  the  Rue  de  Poitiers  assumed  the 
leadership  in  the  reaction  and  threw  its  weight  into  the 
scale  in  favor  of  the  candidature  of  Louis  Napoleon.3  I11 
the  early  part  of  1849  when  the  question  was  raised  of 
elections  for  a  Legislative  Assembly  the  Co  mite  Electoral  de 
la  Liberte  Religieiise  combined  its  forces  with  those  of  the 
Club  of  the  Rue  de  Poitiers.  This  fact  was  announced  in 
a  circular  published  by  Montalembert  in  the  Univers  on  the 
22nd  of  March,  1849. 


When  last  year  .  .  .  we  aroused  your  zeal  and  your  solici¬ 
tude  regarding  the  elections  to  the  Constituent  Assembly,  it 
was  still  possible  to  be  deceived  on  the  true  condition  of  affairs, 
and  to  believe  that  the  question  was  only  one  of  regulating  a 
political  revolution  and  of  constituting  a  new  government. 

1  Falloux,  Les  republicans  et  les  monarchistes  depuis  la  revolution 
de  fevrier,  Revue  des  deux  mondes,  February,  1851. 

2 Ibid.;  cf.  also  Senior,  Conversations  with  Thiers,  p.  30:  “My  prin¬ 
cipal  instrument  for  influencing  the  Assembly  was  the  Club  of  the 
Rue  de  Poitiers.  It  consisted  of  300  of  the  most  eminent  deputies,  and 
from  its  discipline,  its  compactness,  and  the  personal  character  of  its 
members,  controlled  the  inexperienced  and  disunited  remainder.  The 
Constitutionnel  was  its  organ,  and  the  greater  part,  and  by  far  the  best 
part,  of  the  public  press  was  at  its  disposition.  It  exercised  a  pre¬ 
ponderating  influence  over  almost  all  the  great  towns,  and  great  in¬ 
fluence  even  in  the  rural  districts.” 

3  Cf.  infra,  chap.  v. 


I42  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [142 

To-day,  unless  one  is  smitten  with  an  incurable  blindness, 
it  is  necessary  to  realize  that  it  is  no  longer  a  question  of 
making  this  or  that  form  of  government  prevail.  Yes,  it  is 
necessary  to  know  and  to  say  it :  It  is  society  as  a  whole,  society 
as  it  has  been  constituted  for  six  thousand  years,  that  these 
audacious  innovators  wish  to  overthrow  in  order  to  remake  it 
according  to  their  pleasure.  It  is  not  the  last  vestiges  of 
royalty  and  of  aristocracy  which  they  wish  to  obliterate :  it  is 
religion,  the  family  and  property  which  they  deny  and  which 
they  proscribe.  It  is  no  longer  France  alone  that  is  shaken : 
it  is  the  whole  of  Europe  that  is  a  prey  to  the  conflagration. 
Pius  IX,  the  most  generous  of  pontiffs  and  of  men,  to-day 
recompensed  by  the  blackest  ingratitude,  is  an  exile  from  the 
Eternal  City  and  despoiled  of  his  temporal  authory  by  a  revo¬ 
lution  which  assassination  has  worthily  inaugurated !  These 
crimes  find  a  large  party  in  France  to  applaud  them.  This 
party  hides  neither  its  inclinations  nor  its  strength. 

Thanks  to  this  party,  destruction  has  become  amongst  us 
a  sort  of  religion :  it  has  not  only  its  soldiers  and  its  scribes,  but 
its  prophets,  its  apostles  and  what  it  calls  its  martyrs.  What 
ought  above  all  to  fill  our  Catholic  hearts  with  sadness  and 
horror,  these  monstrous  doctrines  seek  to  establish,  one  does 
not  know  what  sacrilegious  solidarity  with  the  dogmas  of 
Christianity  basely  profaned,  and  with  the  Gospel  odiously 
travestied. 

The  party  of  spoliation  and  demagogic  dictatorship  some 
time  ago  learned  how  to  sink  its  personal  rivalries  and  to 
renounce  or  adjourn  its  interior  dissensions  under  the  flag  of 
socialism.  Will  the  party  of  order  and  of  liberty  be  less 
adaptable,  less  generous,  less  master  of  itself?  Will  the  men 
of  spirit  and  of  sense  who  compose  it  not  also,  on  their  part, 
know  how  to  sacrifice  their  discords,  their  preferences,  their 
recriminations,  however  legitimate,  in  order  to  march  together 
under  the  banner  of  society? 

Dominated  by  these  ideas  the  electoral  committee  for  reli¬ 
gious  liberty  has  decided,  for  the  purpose  of  enlarging  its 


REACTION  AGAINST  SOCIALISM 


143 


143] 

sphere  of  action  hitherto  isolated  and  independent,  to  set  the 
example  of  union  and  of  conciliation  which  it  recommends. 
It  has  resolved  to  combine  its  action  with  that  of  the  electoral 
committee  of  the  Rue  de  Poitiers ,  which,  on  its  part,  is  obliged 
to  unite  every  shade  of  moderate  opinion.  Several  of  our 
members  have  entered  into  this  general  committee  and  have 
signed  its  general  program.  You  will  behold  their  names  there 
beside  those  of  men  whom  we  have  for  a  long  time  combated. 
This  rapprochement  will  make  you  understand  both  the  extent 
of  the  danger  that  menaces  us  and  the  spirit  of  union  which 
urges  us  on  the  course  which  we  do  not  hesitate  to  unfold 
before  you. 

Having  made  this  union  with  the  Club  of  the  Rue  de 
Poitiers ,  the  electoral  committee  for  religious  liberty  pro¬ 
ceeded  to  proscribe  certain  classes  of  candidates  as  inelig¬ 
ible  to  receive  the  votes  of  Catholics,  and  to  recommend 
others  whom  it  had  formerly  opposed.  Thus,  even  those 
Catholics  who  “  all  their  lives  ”  had  “  professed  the  doc¬ 
trines  of  religious  liberty  ”  were  to  be  ostracized  if  they  in¬ 
clined  towards  revolutionary  or  socialistic  ideas.  On  the 
other  hand,  men  who  were  formerly  opposed  to  the  liberty 
of  instruction,  having  conceded  that  right  to  gain  the  sup¬ 
port  of  the  Church  in  the  social  crisis,  the  electoral  com¬ 
mittee  recommended  its  followers  to  support.1  Moderate 
Republicans  were  likewise  placed  on  the  black  list,  because 
their  tenets  associated  them  more  or  less  with  the  revolu¬ 
tionary  party.  Accordingly  the  electoral  committee  refused 
to  support  Cavaignac,  Dufaure,  Marie  and  Ferdinand  de 
Lasteyrie,  because  their  names  appeared  in  the  list  of  can¬ 
didates  supported  by  the  National  along  with  those  of  Flo- 
con  and  Ledru-Rollin,  who  were  looked  upon  as  revolution¬ 
aries.2 

1  Cf.  infra,  chap.  vii. 

8  Univers,  May  9,  1849. 


144  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [144 

Thus  not  only  had  the  reaction  against  socialism  de¬ 
feated  the  program  of  the  Social  Catholics  and  driven  them 
into  silence,1  but  it  had  also  allied  the  Catholics  with  the 
political  reaction.  Monseigneur  Darboy  writing  in  the 
C orrespondant  declared : 

the  Church  and  the  Revolution  have  nothing  in  common,  neither 
point  of  departure,  means,  nor  end.  .  .  .  The  Church,  a  so¬ 
ciety  based  on  tradition,  a  model  of  stability,  does  not  recog¬ 
nize  with  the  revolutionaries  that  kind  of  sovereignty  of  the 
streets  which  is  only  the  installation  of  anarchy  and  the  con¬ 
fiscation  by  braggarts,  trimmers  and  sometimes  by  villains,  of 
the  fortune  and  honor  of  peoples.2 

The  doctrines  of  the  clergy  on  property  and  their  influence 
on  public  morality  have  established  their  “  close  solidarity 
with  what  is  called  the  reaction."  3  Montalembert  de¬ 
clared  that  there  could  be  no  compromise  between  the 
Church  and  socialism;4  and  socialism  accepted  the  state¬ 
ment,  and  responded  by  announcing  that  it  was  impossible 
for  the  Catholic  faith  as  established  by  the  Church  to  be¬ 
come  enlightened;  2  and  that  Catholicism  was  its  enemy.5 

1  This  is  the  significance  of  the  campaign  against  the  Ere  Nouvelle,  the 
outcome  of  which  was  its  suspension. 

2  C orrespondant,  November  25,  1850. 

3  Weill,  op.  cit.,  p.  101,  note. 

4  In  legis.  assembly,  Jan.  17,  1850,  Moniteur,  Jan.  18. 

5  Deschanel,  Emile,  Catholicisme  et  socialisme  (Paris,  1850). 

€Joly,  op.  cit.,  p.  218. 


CHAPTER  IV 


The  Presidential  Candidacy  of  General  Cavaignac 
and  the  First  Intervention  at  Rome 

The  history  of  the  relations  between  the  Church  and  the 
state  in  France  during  the  Second  Republic  is  so  closely 
connected  with  that  of  Pius  IX  that  it  is  impossible  to  un- 
derstand  the  one  without  taking  into  consideration  the 
other. 

The  Papal  election  which  took  place  on  the  16th  of  June, 
1846,  after  a  reign  filled  with  abuses  that  were  becoming 
intolerable,  brought  to  the  pontifical  throne  Cardinal  Mastai 
Ferretti,  bishop  of  Imola,  a  man  who  was  little  known,  but 
who  belonged  to  an  old  Italian  family  “  long  famous  down 
to  their  cats  ”,  so  the  proverb  ran,  “  for  nationalist  senti¬ 
ment.”  1  Kind-hearted,  impulsive,  benevolent  and  a  mod¬ 
erate  liberal,  the  bishop  of  Imola  had  disapproved  of  the 
policy  of  repression  adopted  by  the  Gregorian  regime,  and 
sympathized  with  the  aspirations  of  the  Italians.2  Little 
thinking  that  he  would  be  elected  to  fill  the  vacant  See,  he 
set  out  for  the  Conclave  with  three  books,  GiobertPs  Primato, 
Balbo’s  Sperayiza  d’ Italia  and  D’Azeglio’s  Degli  ultima  Casa 
di  Romagna,  with  the  intention  of  humbly  offering  them  to 
the  new  Pope,  a  gift  which  was  suggestive  of  the  attitude 

1  King,  Bolton,  History  of  Italian  Unity,  2nd  ed.  (London,  1912),  vol. 
i,  p.  171 ;  Mourret,  Fernand,  Le  mouvemcnt  Catholique  en  France  de 
1830  d  1850  (Paris,  1917),  P-  234- 

2  Pasolini,  Memoirs  (London,  1885). 

145 


[145 


I46  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [146 

which  he  expected  that  pontiff  to  adopt.1  Piius  IX,  how¬ 
ever,  was  almost  totally  unfitted  both  by  nature  and  by 
education  to  face  the  situation  that  now  confronted  the 
Papacy.  Devoid  of  genius,  irresolute,  capable  of  being 
easily  led,  yet  at  the  same  time  of  inflexible  obstinacy,2 
his  natural  deficiencies  might  have  been  somewhat  offset  by1 
a  broad  education.  “  But,  unfortunately,  bad  health  and 
the  fatigues  of  mission  work  had  interrupted  for  Cardinal 
Mastai  the  regular  course  of  study  which  might  have  made 
him  a  practical  man,  and  he  had  never  found  either  time 
or  opportunity  to  obtain  correct  knowledge  of  public  af¬ 
fairs.”  3  Lacking  therefore  that  breadth  of  judgment  and 
firmness  of  character  which  are  so  necessary  in  the  political 
reformer,  Pius  IX  possessed  few  qualities  save  a  spotless 
life,  an  almost  infinite  amount  of  good  will,  and  an  optimism 
as  yet  unclouded  by  disappointment,  to  steer  the  Papacy 
through  one  of  the  most  troublous1  periods  of  its  history.4* 

That  Pius  IX  was  in  favor  of  many  moderate  reforms 
in  the  government  of  the  Papal  States  there  can  be  no  doubt. 
His  first  official  act  was  to  proclaim  an  amnesty,  July  16, 
1846,  granting  pardon  to  all  political  prisoners  and  exiles. 
The  effect  of  this  act  was  electric.  The  new  Pope  immed¬ 
iately  became  the  beloved  ruler  of  a  people  capable  of  great 

1  Johnston,  R.  M.,  The  Roman  theocracy  and  the  republic  (London, 
1901),  p.  33. 

2  King,  op.  cit.,  p.  171. 

3  Pasolini,  op.  cit.,  p.  29. 

4  “ .  .  .  one  was  soon  forced  to  recognize  that  one  had  been  deceived 
with  regard  to  the  Pope,  and  that  Pius  IX  did  not  possess  the  strength 
necessary  in  a  leader  of  the  democratic  reform  in  Italy.  Perhaps  no 
other  man  in  his  place  would  have  had  more  than  he;  perhaps  it  is  just 
to  recognize  that  what  we  find  blameworthy  in  his  conduct  was  the 
fatal  result  of  the  position  that  he  occupied,  both  as  head  of  religion 
and  as  guardian  of  the  monarchical  power.”  Bastide,  La  republique 
frangaise  en  Italic  cn  1848  (Brussels,  1858),  p.  193. 


FIRST  INTERVENTION  AT  ROME 


14  7 


147] 

emotion  and  enthusiasm.  Nor  was  his  popularity  confined 
to  his  own  subjects;  for  he  became  the  most  talked  of  man 
in  Europe.  Further  proof  of  his  desire  for  reform  lies  in 
the  fact  that  he  purposed  to-  carry  out,  to  some  extent  at} 
least,  the  reforms  suggested  in  the  memorandum  of  the 
powers  to  the  Papal  States  in  1831,  and  to  this  end  he  ex¬ 
pressed  the  wish  to  have  the  assistance  of  some  Englishman 
of  rank  and  experience.  Lord  Minto  was  accordingly  sent 
to  Rome  in  November,  1847.1 

But  in  the  execution  of  his  reforms  Pius  IX  was  hamp¬ 
ered  by  two  things :  by  the  tendency  to  allow  all  reforms  to 
be  clamored  for  by  the  people  before  they  were  proposed 
by  the  government,  and  by  opposition  amongst  his  advisors. 
D’Azegiio,  writing  on  the  6th  of  July,  1847,  remarked  that 
the  greatest  danger  for  Pius  IX  would  be  to  “  drift  in  un¬ 
certainty  and  indecision.”  2  Lord  Minto-,  in  the  early  part 
of  1848,  expressed  to  Palmerston  the  opinion  that  Pius  IX 
was  “  not  made  to  drive  the  state  coach."  3  The:  Pope 
seemed  inclined  to  bask  in  the  sunshine  of  the  popularity 
created  by  his  first  act  of  clemency  rather  than  proceed  to 
execute  the  further  liberal  reforms  of  which  his  subjects 
had  become  expectant.  As  a  consequence  of  this  indeci¬ 
sive  policy  the  populace  soon  learned  to  believe  that  they 
could  wring  almo-st  any  concession  f  rom  him  simply  by  clam¬ 
oring  for  it  long  and  loudly  enough.  But  besides  his  own 
inability  to  proceed  in  his  reforms  with  resolution  and  firm¬ 
ness,  Pius  IX  was  hindered  by  opposition  on  the  part  of 
the  adherents  of  the  Gregorian  regime  who  had  been  re¬ 
tained  in  office,4  If  the  Pope  did  not  order  in  a  very  de- 

1  Ashley,  Lord  Palmerston  (London,  1879),  p.  42. 

2  Correspondance  politique ,  p.  12. 

8  Ashley,  op.  cit.,  p.  44. 

i  “  He  (Pius  IX)  was  very  ready  to  proceed  to  new  reforms,  but  these 
should  have  been  enacted  spontaneously,  without  appearing  to  be  forced 


I4g  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [148 

deled  manner  a  reform  measure  to  be  carried  out,  it  was  sure 
to  be  delayed  by  all  sorts  of  excuses.1 

The  rock  on  which  Pius  IX  met  with  shipwreck,  how¬ 
ever,  was  his  failure  to  reconcile  the  aspirations  of  Italian 
nationalism  with  the  temporal  sovereignty  of  the  Papacy. 
The  clamor  of  the  populace  might  impel  him  to  go  a  certain 
length,  even  beyond  his  own  inclinations;  but  it  was  in¬ 
evitable  that  there  should  be  a  limit  beyond  which  his  own 
innate  obstinacy  and  his  theory  of  the  rights  of  the  Papacy, 
buttressed  by  the  intrigues  of  the  retrograde  party,  would 
prevent  him  from  going.  Thus  he  conceded  the  admission 
of  a  certain  number  of  laymen  into  his  ministry;  he  granted 
a  constitution;  2  he  even  gave  bis  blessing  to  the  papal 
volunteers  as  they  departed  from  Rome  for  the  defense  of 
the  States  of  the  Church  against  the  encroachments  of 
Austria.  But  he  would  never  consent  to  become  a  mere 
figurehead  in  the  state;  and  his  feeling  that  he  was  the 
spiritual  father  of  Austrians  as  well  as  of  Italians  forbade 
him  declaring  war  against  Austria  as  the  Nationalists 
wished.  By  the  Allocution  which  he  pronounced  in  the 
^Consistory  on  the  29th  of  April,  1848,  Pius  IX,  in  view  of 
the  very  nature  of  the  Papal  sovereignty,  refused  to  sanc¬ 
tion  the  cooperation  of  his  state  in  the  nationalist  rising 
against  Austria.3  From  this  time  on,  the  extreme  Nation- 

from  him  by  clamor.”  Pasolini,  Memoirs ,  pp.  44-45.  “  The  court  of 
Rome  was  in  all  its  traditions  adverse  to  the  reforming  policy  of  Pius 
IX,  who  found  himself  thwarted  continually.”  Ibid.,  p.  36. 

1  Pasolini,  op.  cit.,  p.  38. 

2  March  14,  1848. 

3  “  The  dark  and  heavy  question  in  my  eyes  is  that  of  war !  Why  have 
we  stumbled?  Because  when  we  wished  for  war,  and  had  promoted  it 
with  all  our  strength,  the  Pope  deemed  fit,  as  a  conscientious  duty, 
solemnly  to  protest  against  it.  In  consequence  of  this  act  we  drew  back, 
and  all  Italy  knows  it.”  Pasolini,  op.  cit.,  p.  29,  Minghetti  to  Pasolini. 

“  This  date,  the  29th  of  April,  .  .  .  marks  the  end  of  the  popular 
favor  which  Pius  IX  has  enjoyed  since  his  accession . ”  Gaillard, 


FIRST  INTERVENTION  AT  ROME 


149 


149] 

alists  began  to  feel  that  Pius  IX  was  opposed  to  their  in¬ 
terests.1  The  forces  of  disorder  grew  much  more  power¬ 
ful  in  the  Papal  States;  and  the  Pope  found  it  increasingly 
difficult  to  form  a  ministry  under  the  new  constitution.  As 
early  as  the  24th  of  February,  1848,  Palmerston  had  written 
to  Lord  Minto:  “  As  to  the  poor  Pope,  I  live  in  daily  dread 
of  hearing  of  some  misadventure  having  befallen  him. 
Events  have  gone  too  fast  for  such  a  slow  sailor  as  he  is. 
I  only  hope  he  will  not  be  swamped  by  the  swell  in  the  wake 
of  those  who  have  outstripped  him.  .  .  .”  2 

At  the  same  time  the  Pope  began  to  feel  resentment  at 
the  ingratitude  of  his  subjects  for  his  good  intentions  and 
for  his  ire  forms.  “  How  ungrateful  people  are!  ”  he  ex¬ 
claimed  to  Pasolini,  “  When  I  have  given  them  an  amnesty 
and  so  many  reforms/’  And  Pasolini  added :  “  Pie  could 
not  get  over  his  astonishment  and  grief  at  finding  none  of 
the  gratitude  he  had  been  led  to  expect,  and  which  he  had 
so  clearly  merited.”  3  Thus  thinking  himself  surrounded 
by  distrustful  and  ungrateful  men  “  he  began  to  distrust 
everybody  and  everything.”  4  He  felt  the  reins  of  power 

L’Exp edition  a  Rome  en  1849  (Paris,  1861),  p.  58.  “Here  and  throughout 
Romagna  heavy  accusations  are  thrown  out  against  him  (the  Pope).  I 
firmly  believe  in  the  purity  of  his  intentions,  although,  alas !  his  inde¬ 
cision  has  done  dreadful  harm,  to  Italy.  There  was  a  moment  when 
Pius  IX  had  before  him  the  most  beautiful  of  all  good  works  to  ac¬ 
complish.  He  might  have  restored  religion,  regulated  liberty,  and 
pacified  Europe;  but  that  moment  has  gone  by,  never  to  return,  and  the 
Pope’s  temporal  power  is  once  more  considered  pernicious  in  Machia- 
velli’s  sense.”  Minghetti  to  Pasolini.  No  date.  Pasolini,  op.  cit.,  p.  93. 

1  Ibid.,  p.  51. 

•Ashley,  op.  cit.,  p.  52. 

3  Pasolini,  op.  cit.,  p.  51. 

4  Ibid.,  p.  81.  “  One  soon  saw  Pius  IX,  alarmed  by  the  movement 

which  he  believed  he  had  instigated,  draw  back  and  throw  himself  into 
the  arms  of  those  who  urged  upon  him  the  sacred  duty  of  preserving 
intact  that  monarchical  crown  with  its  twofold  absolutism,  of  which  he 
had  been  made  trustee.”  Bastide,  op.  cit.,  p.  194;  cf.  Pasolini,  op.  cit., 
p.  81. 


!  -O  CA THGL1CISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [  1 50 

and  the  control  of  the  state  slipping  out  of  his  hands  under 
the  violence  of  the  populace;  and  in  August  he  addressed  a 
request  to  General  Cavaignac,  the  acting  President  of  the 
French  Republic  for  a  force  of  three  or  four  thousand 
troops  to  assist  in  maintaining  order  in  the  Papal  States.3* 
General  Cavaignac  refused  the  request,  however,  alleging 
that  such  intervention  would  be  inconsistent  with  the  media¬ 
tion  which  France  had  propo'sed  for  the  settlement  of 
the  affairs  of  Italy.1 2  Consequently  the  Pope  had  to  rely 
on  his  own  resources.  Accordingly  on  the  14th  of  Sep¬ 
tember,  acting  on  the  advice  of  his  counsellors,  amongst 
whom  was  Pasolini,  he  called  upon  Pellegrino  de  Rossi  to 
form  a  ministry.  Rossi  was  a  moderate  liberal  who  had 
'been  sent  to  Rome  by  the  government  of  Louis-Philippe  on 
a  diplomatic  mission.3  With  the  proclamation  of  the  Re¬ 
public  on  the  24th  of  February,  1848,  to  which  he  had  re¬ 
fused  his  adhesion,  Rossi’s  mission  had  come  to  an  end, 
but  he  had  remained  in  Rome  as  a  private  citizen.  The 
task  that  confronted  the  new  minister  was  not  an  easy  one, 
but  he  undertook  it  resolutely.  He  attempted  to  make  of 
The  constitutional  papal  government  what  it  had  hitherto 
failed  to  be,  a  stable  government.  With  this  aim  in  view, 
he  set  himself  to  repress  the  forces  of  disorder  within  the 
state.  But  opportunity  was  not  given  him  to  accomplish 
his  task.  Regarding  him  as  an  absolutist  and  as  a  reac¬ 
tionary,4  the  revolutionaries,  who  had  become  more  and 
more  hostile  to  Pius  IX,  conspired  against  him,  and  on  the 
15th  of  November,  1848,  as  he  started  to  ascend  the  stairs 

1  Bastide,  op.  cit.,  p.  208. 

*  Ibid.,  cf.  Gaillard,  op.  cit.,  p.  73. 

3  Johnston,  op.  cit.,  p.  169. 

4  Cf.  Annuaire  historique,  1848,  p.  573;  Niccolini,  Pius  IX  (Edinburgh, 
1851),  PP-  78-79. 


FIRST  INTERVENTION  AT  ROME 


151] 


151 


for  the  opening  of  the  Chamber  of  Deputies,  had  him  struck 
down  by  the  blow  of  a  skilled  assassin. 

The  news  of  the  fate  of  Rossi  fell  like  a  thunderbolt  on 
the  Quirinal.  In  his  bewilderment  Pius  IX  scarcely  knew4 
which  way  to  turn  or  whom  to-  consult.1  On  the  16th  of 
November  the  leaders  of  the  populace  organized  a  demon¬ 
stration  to  compel  the  Pope  to  accept  their  democratic  pro¬ 
gram,  consisting  of  the  convocation  of  a  constituent  as¬ 
sembly,  declaration  of  war  against  Austria  and  a  ministry 
composed  of  popular  leaders.2  Pius  IX  ait  first  refused, 
helplessly  protesting  that  it  was  against  his  conscience.  But 
after  a  show  of  force  and  a  collision  with  the  Swiss  guards 
during  which  a  prelate,  Monsignor  Palma,  was  killed,  the 
Pope  yielded.3 4  That  night  Rome  was  illuminated  in  cele¬ 
bration  of  the  event.  “  The  sovereign  has  given  us  the 
Republic  ”,  cried  the  mob.4 

The  situation  in  which  Pius  IX  found  himself  after  the 
1 6th  of  November  was  an  intolerable  one;  and  on  the 
twenty-second  he  determined  to  make  his  escape  from  Rome. 
Accordingly  on  the  24th  of  November,  disguised  as  a  simple 
priest,  Pius  IX  fled  from  the  Eternal  City.  Accompanied 
by  the  Countess  Spaur,  the  wife  of  the  Bavarian  Ambas¬ 
sador,  he  drove  to  Gaeta  in  the  Kingdom  of  Naples  and 
took  up  his  residence  there.  So  carefully  was  the  secret 
of  the  Pope’s  intentions  guarded  that  the  Duke  d’Harcourt, 
the  French  Plenipotentiary,  drove  to  Civita-Vecchia  with 
the  papal  baggage,  fondly  believing  that  Pius  IX  was  in¬ 
tending  to  accept  his  invitation  and  take  refuge  in  France.5 


1  Johnston,  op.  cit.,  p.  195;  Farini,  The  Roman  State,  vol.  ii,  p.  409. 

3  Annuaire  historique,  1848,  pp.  582  et  seq. 

3  Johnston,  op.  cit.,  pp.  197-198.  Annuaire  historique,  p.  584. 

4  Ibid. 

6  Senior,  Conversations  with  de  Tocqueville,  vol.  i,  p.  238;  cf.  Johnston, 
op.  cit.,  pp.  203  et  seq. 


I52  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [152 

The  intelligence  of  the  plight  of  the  Pope  was  received  in 
France  with  a  consternation  corresponding  to  the  enthu¬ 
siasm  with  which  his  liberalism  had  previously  been  hailed. 

Few  of  the  faithful — not  even  those  of  Italy — had  re¬ 
ceived  with  more  acclaim  the  advent  of  a  liberal  Pope  than 
the  Catholics  of  France.  On  the  17th  of  February,  1847, 
Frederic  Ozanam  had  written  from  Rome  to  his  brother : 
“  You  will  see  that  it  will  be  the  bishop  of  Rome  who  shall 
once  more  reconcile  the  world  with  the  Papacy.”  “  To¬ 
day  ”,  wrote  Monseigneur  Sibour,  bishop  of  Digue,  “  all 
has  become  clear :  heaven  has  spoken.  The  miraculous 
election  of  Pius  IX  has  placed  on  the  Eternal  Throne  the 
Moses  of  the  new  age,  the  minister  of  divine  activity.”  1 
“  Glory  to  the  immortal  pontiff,  who,  from  the  height  of 
that  august  throne  where  he  is  seated,  has  been  able  to 
read  the  divine  decree  in  the  heavens  and  has  given  the 
signal  without  hesitation.”  Not  only,  however,  were  the 
French  Catholics  enthusiastic  over  the  reforms  of  Pius  IX, 
but  they  also  found  in  his  example  the  sanction  for  their  own 
liberalism.2  A  liberal  pope  was,  to  them,  the  signal  for 
all  the  world  to  be  liberal  with  him.  It  was  perhaps  inevit¬ 
able  that  the  French  Catholics  should  read  into  the  mind  and 
acts  of  Pius  IX  much  that  was  in  their  own  minds,  and 

1  Letter  to  Father  Ventura  in  La  France  religieuse,  Oct.,  1848,  p.  68. 

2  Bazin,  op.  cit.,  chap.  xiv.  Some  idea  of  the  extent  of  this  enthusiasm 
for  Pius  IX  may  be  gained  from  the  following:  “The  return  of  fra¬ 
ternity  amongst  men  is  due  first  of  all  to  the  French  people,  then  to  Pope 
Pius  IX  who  has  cleansed  in  the  regenerative  waters  of  liberty  the  old 
stains  of  the  Papal  power.”  U  Alpha  de  la  repnblique  ou  le  petit 
catechisme  des  grands  enfants  (Paris,  1848).  On  March  25,  1848  the 
editors  of  the  Ere  Nouvelle  sent  an  address  to  Pius  IX,  in  which  they 
saluted  him  as  the  source  of  their  inspiration :  “  The  immortal  work  of 
conciliation  of  liberty  with  religion,  Very  Holy  Father,  which  is  the  glory 
of  the  pontificate  of  your  Holiness,  has  been  their  inspiration.  They 
have  dared,  they  have  wished,  to  follow  in  the  footsteps  of  their  father 
and  head  pastor.”  Bazin,  op.  cit.,  pp.  351-352. 


FIRST  INTERVENTION  AT  ROME 


153 


153] 

in  so  doing  not  only  outstrip  him  in  liberalism,  but  also 
make  him  appear  more  liberal  than  he  really  was.  Thus 
we  find  Ozanam  concluding  an  article  on  the  Papacy  by  using 
the  phrase  so  suggestive  of  radicalism :  “  Let  us  pass  to  the 
barbarians  and  f  ollow  Pius  IX  A1  It  is  theref  ore  compre¬ 
hensible  that  the  situation  in  which  the  Pope  was  placed 
after  the  1 5th  of  November,  as  soon  as  the  news  of  it  was 
received  in  France,  should  cause  great  concern.  “  Our 
mind  is  plunged  in  sadness  ”,  wrote  the  Archbishop  of  Paris. 
“  The  Church  suffers  in  its  head  ”.  “  The  vicar  of  Jesus 

Christ  begins  his  passion:  he  is  drinking  the  bitter  cup  of 
ingratitude.”  “  The  sufferings  of  the  Sovereign  Pontiff  ”, 
wailed  the  Correspondant,  “  pierce  the  depths  of  our 
hearts  ”.  “  In  striking  the  head  of  the  Church  ”,  said  the 

Ami  de  la  Religion,  “  in  striking  the  vicar  of  Jesus  Christ, 
the  most  august  and  sacred  thing  on  earth,  they  have  pierced 
with  the  same  blow,  the  deepest,  the  most  tender  .... 
spot  in  our  heart.”  2  Pius  IX  to-day,  said  the  Ere 
Nouvelle,  “  is  a  thousand  times  dearer  and  more  venerable 
in  the  eyes  of  the  Christian  world  than  on  the  very  day 
when  a  grateful  people  surrounded  him  with  those  homages 
and  those  cries  of  triumph  which  were  so  soon  forgotten.”  3 
Such  being  the  attitude  of  the  French  Catholics,  they 
called  upon  the  government  to  intervene  in  Italy  on  behalf 
of  the  Pope.  “  Republican  and  democratic  France  ”,  said 

1  Le  Correspondant,  Feb.  10,  1848 :  This  phrase  was  so  ambiguous  that 

Ozanam  had  to  explain  it  in  a  letter  of  February  22,  1848.  “  When  I 

said,  let  us  pass  to  the  Barbarians,  I  did  not  mean  to  go  over  to  the 
radicals,  to  those  radicals  who  are  giving  everyone  concern  and  of  whom 
everyone  is  afraid.”  “  In  saying,  let  us  pass  to  the  barbarians  I  demand 
that  we  act  like  him  (Pius  IX),  that  we  concern  ourselves  with  the 
people  who  have  too  many  needs  and  not  enough  rights,  who  demand 
with  justice  a  greater  share  in  political  affairs  and  guarantees  of  work 
against  poverty.  .  .  .”  Lettres,  vol.  ii,  p.  190  et  seq. 

2  Ami  de  la  religion ,  November  28,  1848. 

8  kre  nouvelle,  Nov.  26. 


!54  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [154 

the  Ere  Nouvelle,  “  will  do  for  Pius  IX  what  in  other  times 
the  most  glorious  heads  of  the  monarchy  have  done  for  the 
Papacy.” 1  “  Happy  France,  eldest  daughter  of  the 

Church  ”,  exclaimed  the  Ami  de  la  Religion,  “if  God  give 
her  a  part  in  this  glorious  work  ” — the  restoration  of  Pius 
IX.2 

The  first  intelligence  that  the  French  government  re¬ 
ceived  of  the  events  which  had  transpired  at  Rome  came 
indirectly,  on  Saturday,  the  25th  of  November,  through  the 
Spanish  legation,  the  despatch  from  the  Duke  d’Harcourt, 
the  French  Ambassador,  arriving  only  on  the  morning  of 
the  twenty-sixth.3  But  on  the  twenty-fifth  General  Cav- 
aignac,  the  acting  head  of  the  government,  was  deeply  ab¬ 
sorbed  in  refuting  the  virulent  attacks  of  his  enemies  in  a 
session  of  the  Assembly  that  lasted  into  the  night.  Never¬ 
theless  at  the  close  of  the  session  he  approached  Corcelle,  who 
was  an  ardent  Catholic  and  a  member  of  the  Assembly, 
whom  General  Cavaignac  had  proposed  to  send  to  Rome  in 
September,  informing  him  that  the  time  had  come  for  him 
to  :set  out  for  Italy.4  Thus  the  decision  was  made  to  send 
assistance  to  the  Pope  before  any  despatch  had  been  received 
from  the  official  representative  of  France  at  Rome.  The 
following  morning,  the  same  on  which  the  despatch  from 
d’Harcourt  arived,  an  order  was  sent  to  Toulon  and  Mar¬ 
seilles  to  embark  3,500  troops  which  had  been  kept  there 
for  some  time  owing  to  the  intention  once  entertained  of 
sending  them  to  the  relief  of  Venice.5  These  troops  were 
to  sail  for  Civita-Vecchia  as  soon  as  Corcelle,  the  envoy 

1  krc  nouvelle ,  Nov.  28,  1848. 

2  Ami  de  la  religion,  Nov.  28,  1848. 

3  Corcelle,  Francois  T.  de,  Souvenir  de  1848  (Paris,  1857),  p.  8. 

4 Ibid . 

5  Gorce,  de  la,  Histoire  de  la  seconde  republique  frangaise,  vol.  i,  p. 
478.  Normanby  to  Palmerston,  Nov.  27,  1848. 


FIRST  INTERVENTION  AT  ROME 


155 


155] 

extraordinary,  should  arrive  at  Marseilles.  On  the  even¬ 
ing  of  the  27th  of  November,  Corcelle  received  his  instruc¬ 
tions  and  departed  from  Paris, 

Upon  his  landing  at  Civita-Vecchia  Corcelle  was  to  an¬ 
nounce  to  the  Pope  that  he  had  arrived  in  consequence  of 
the  appeal  made  to  the  French  government  for  protection^ 
The  instructions  which  he  carried  consisted  of  two  parts, 
one  intended  to  ibe  communicated  to  the  Assembly,  and  the 
other  secret.  The  latter,  providing  for  the  event  of  his 
being  unable  to  agree  with  dTiarcourt,  empowered  him  to 
command  the  troops  and  conclude  what  negotiations  he 
deemed  advisable.  That  part  of  his  instructions  which 
were  intended  for  the  public  stated  that  the  purpose  of 
his  mission  was  “  to  intervene  in  the  name  of  the  French 
Republic  to  restore  personal  liberty  to  his  Holiness  if  he  had 
been  deprived  of  it.”  Moreover  he  was  to  assure  the  Pope 
of  a  welcome  worthy  of  him  on  French  soil  if  he  should 
choose  to  accept  it.  But,  and  this  was  the  most  important 
part  of  the  instructions, 

You  are  not  authorized  to  intervene  in  any  of  the  political 
questions  which  are  at  issue  in  Rome.  It  belongs  to  the 
National  Assembly  alone  to  determine  the  part  it  would  have 
the  Republic  take  in  reestablishing  order  in  the  States  of  the 
Church.  For  the  moment  ....  you  have  to  assure  the 
liberty  of  the  Pope  and  respect  for  his  person. 

The  troops  placed  at  his  disposal  were  under  no  considera¬ 
tion  to  be  disembarked  unless  such  a  step  were  absolutely 
necessary  to  insure  the  success  of  his  limited  mission.2 
These  instructions  were  communicated  to  the  Assembly  on 
the  28th  of  November;  but  the  general  discussion  of  the 

1  Normanby  to  Palmerston,  Nov.  27,  1848. 

*Moniteur,  Nov.  29,  1848,  session  of  Tues.,  Nov.  28th.  Normanby  to 
Palmerston,  Nov.  27,  1848. 


!56  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [156 

intervention  was  postponed  until  the  thirtieth,  in  order  to 
give  time  for  the  arrival  of  further  despatches  from  d’Har- 
court  at  Rome.  The  Assembly  had  not  been  consulted  re¬ 
garding  the  expedition,  affirmed  Generaf  Cavaignac,  owing 
to  the  fact  that  the  urgency  of  the  situation  did  not  permit, 
and  because  the  executive  did  not  believe  that  it  was  exceed¬ 
ing  its  constitutional  rights  in  taking  such  a  step. 

The  discussion  of  the  30th  of  November  was  begun 
by  the  “  Left  ”  who  attacked  the  project  of  the  executive. 
Ledru-Rollin  beheld  in  the  expedition  an  attack  on  the 
liberties  of  the  Roman  people  who  had  risen  in  revolt  against 
a  temporal  prince.  He  maintained  that  it  was  a  violation 
of  article  VII  of  the  preamble  of  the  Constitution,  which 
stated  that  Republican  France  respected  the  liberties  of 
other  peoples.  Edgar  Quinet,  while  approving  the  moral 
protection  extended  to  the  head  of  Catholicism,  stated  that 
the  issue  at  Rome  was  between  the  temporal  power  of  the 
Papacy  and  Italian  nationality,  which  events  had  shown  to 
be  incompatible.  It  was  necessary  therefore  to  choose  be¬ 
tween  these  two  things :  either  to  renounce  the  hopes  of 
Italian  nationality,  or  else  destroy  forever  the  temporal 
power  of  the  Holy  See.  And  he  boldly  affirmed  that  to 
place  any  obstacle  in  the  way  of  the  attainment  of  Italian 
nationality  was  to  strike  a  blow  at  the  Revolution  of 
February. 

The  action  of  the  government  was  defended  by  Montal- 
embert  who  contended  that  it  was  not  an  Italian,  a  French 
or  even  a  European  question  that  was  at  stake,  but  a  Cath¬ 
olic  one. 

It  is  not  a  question  of  an  ordinary  sovereignty  [he  affirmed]  ; 
it  is  not  a  question  of  an  ordinary  state ;  it  is  a  question  con¬ 
cerning  him  who  is  the  spiritual  sovereign  of  two  hundred 
millions  of  people,  and  of  a  state  that  is  the  center  of  this 
sovereignty:  it  is  a  question  of  liberty  of  the  Catholic  idea 
itself. 


FIRST  INTERVENTION  AT  ROME 


1 57 


157] 

The  French  Republic  should  be  proud  to  initiate  itself  in 
foreign  affairs  by  supporting  the  Catholic  idea.  But  above 
all  Montalembert  supported  the  intervention  because  it  was 
calculated  to  ensure  the  liberty  of  the  Pope. 

The  religious  liberty  of  the  Catholics  in  France  [he  con¬ 
tended]  is  conditioned  upon  the  liberty  of  the  Pope;  for  if 
the  Pope,  the  supreme  judge,  the  ultimate  tribunal,  the  living 
organ  at  once  of  the  law  and  of  the  faith  of  Catholics,  is  not 
free,  we  cease  to  be  free.  We  have  therefore  the  right  to  de¬ 
mand  of  the  government  which  represents  us  and  which  we 
have  constituted,  that  it  guarantee  us  both  our  personal  liberty 
in  the  matter  of  religion  and  the  liberty  of  him  who  is  for  us 
the  living  religion. 

At  the  conclusion  of  the  debate  the  Assembly  approved 
the  action  of  the  executive  by  an  overwhelming  majority, 
480-63. 1 

What  then  was  the  main  motive  that  led  the  executive 
to  undertake  this  mission  on  behalf  of  the  Pope?  Were 
they  merely  prompted  by  their  devotion  to  the  head  of  Cath¬ 
olicism?  There  is  no  reason  to  doubt  such  devotion  on  the 
part  of  the  executive,  and  that  the  religious  element  en¬ 
tered  to  some  extent  into  the  project  of  intervention.2 
“  The  Republic,”  wrote  General  Cavaignac  to  Pius  IX  on 
the  3rd  of  December,  “  will  behold  with  pride  your  Holi¬ 
ness  giving  to  the  world  the  spectacle  of  that  consecration 
wholly  religious  which  your  presence  in  its  midst  augurs, 
and  which  it  [the  Republic]  will  accept  with  the  dignity 
and  the  religious  respect  which  are  becoming  to  this  great 


1  Moniteur,  December  1,  1848. 

2  Corcelle,  op.  cit.,  p.  7.  M.  Bastide  said  it  was  their  duty  to  make 
some  demonstration  in  support  of  the  Pope;  this  had  always  been  a  part 
which  France  had  claimed  for  herself  .  .  .  Normanby  to  Palmerston, 
Nov.  28,  1848. 


1 5g  CA  THOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [  1 58 

and  generous  nation.”  1  Nevertheless  it  seems  difficult  to 
believe  that  this  was  the  sole  motive.  The  mission  was  con¬ 
ceived  before  any  word  had  been  received  from  the  French 
representative  at  Rome;  and  when  those  despatches  did  ar¬ 
rive,  they  contained  no  request  from  the  Pope  for  interven¬ 
tion.2  The  excuse  which  was  offered  to  Lord  Normanby 
was  that  the  Pope  in  immediate  danger  had  asked  for  as¬ 
sistance.  But  such  a  request  had  been  made  two  months 
before,  and  was  for  an  intervention  of  a  different  kind.3 
Moreover,  not  only  had  aid  been  refused  when  the  Pope 
asked  for  it ; 4  but  General  Cavaignac  opposed  the  Expedi¬ 
tion  to  Rome  in  1849. 5  Why  then  such  haste  to  despatch 
a  force  in  aid  of  the  Pope  in  November,  1848,  before  the 
circumstances  at  Rome  were  fully  known?  The  answer  is 
found  in  the  political  situation  that  then  existed  in  France. 

The  elections  which  were  to  give  the  Republic  its  first 
President,  who,  under  the  new  Constitution,  was  to  be 
elected  by  direct  universal  suffrage,  were  to  take  place  on 
the  10th  of  December.  Leaving  out  of  account  the  candi¬ 
dates  who  were  too  badly  discredited  to  be  elected,  Lamar¬ 
tine,  Ledru-Rollin,  Raspail,  the  two  strongest  candidates 
were  Louis  Napoleon  Bonaparte  and  General  Cavaignac. 
An  admirable  soldier,  perfectly  upright  in  character,  but  a 
man  of  no  very  extensive  views  and  little  knowledge  of 
affairs  outside  military  life,  General  Cavaignac  “  combined 
a  passion  for  order  with  that  of  liberty.”  *  Belonging  to 
a  family  known  for  its  republicanism  under  the  First  Re- 

1  Moniteur. 

3  Cf.  speech  of  Jules  Favre  on  Nov.  30.  Moniteur,  Dec.  1. 

3  Normanby  to  Palmerston,  Nov.  30,  1848. 

4  In  August. 

6  Corcelle,  op.  cit. 

6  Weill,  Lc  Parti  republicain  de  1814  a  1870  (Paris,  1900),  p.  305; 
Corcelle,  op.  cit.,  p.  3;  Senior,  Correspondence  and  conversations  of 
Alexis  de  Tocqueville  with  N.  W.  Senior,  vol.  i,  p.  195. 


FIRST  INTERVENTION  AT  ROME 


159 


159] 

public,  he  possessed  a  “  fanatical  devotion  ”  1  to  Republican 
principles,  and  was  regarded  as  the  only  hope  for  the  Re¬ 
public  in  1 848. 2  Realizing  that  the  country  was  not  re¬ 
publican  in  sentiment  he  hoped  by  becoming  president  to 
make  it  so  and  thus  consolidate  the  Republic.3  But  one  of 
the  factors  that  had  to  be  taken  into  consideration  was  the 
Church;  and  it  was  becoming  increasingly  evident  in  the 
autumn  of  1848  that  the  republicanism  of  many  of  its 
leaders,  so  loudly  proclaimed  in  February,  was  on  the  wane. 
Was  the  situation  in  Rome,  then,  not  an  opportunity  to 
rally  the  Catholics,  who  had  shown  themselves  to  be  so  in¬ 
fluential,  to  the  support  of  the  cause  that  General  Cavaignac 
had  undertaken  to  sustain?  Apart  from  the  attacks  of  their 
enemies,  who  did  not  fail  to  make  use  of  this  argument,  the 
evidence  is  strong  that  this  did  enter  into  the  consideration 
of  the  executive4  Lord  Normanby  in  a  confidential  des- 

1  Normanby  to  Palmerston,  Dec.  12,  1848. 

2  Senior,  op.  cit.,  vol.  i,  p.  195;  cf.  Senior,  Conversations  with  Thiers 
and  other  eminent  men ,  vol.  i,  pp.  32  et  seq .;  de  la  Gorce,  op.  cit.,  vol.  i, 
pp.  477-478;  Mourret,  op.  cit.,  p.  356. 

3  When  Lord  Normanby  on  one  occasion  urged  upon  General  Cavaignac 

the  dissolution  of  the  Constituent  Assembly,  which  the  country  felt  had 
accomplished  its  purpose,  “  the  General’s  only  answer  was  that  new 
elections  for  some  time  to  come  would  destroy  the  Republic.  I  said, 
‘  Then  you  do  not  think  the  country  Republican  ?  *  ‘  Certainly  not,’  was 

his  answer,  ‘and  never  was!  ’  ‘And  you  expect  to  make  it  so?’  ‘It  is 
with  that  object  alone  that  I  seek  the  presidency.’”  N.  to  P.,  Nov.  27. 

4  Normanby,  A  year  of  revolution,  vol.  ii,  pp.  332  et  seq.;  cf.  Gaillard, 
Expedition  de  Rome  en  1849,  PP-  89  et  seq.  “  General  Cavaignac  always 
told  me  .  .  .  that  he  wished  to  maintain  the  Pope  as  a  constitutional 
sovereign  and  had  not  the  least  desire  to  see  a  Republic  established  at 
Rome.  This  tone  taken  by  this  purely  republican  administration  imme¬ 
diately  preceding  the  Presidential  Election  showed  their  opinion  that 
there  existed  in  France  in  favor  of  the  pope  a  public  opinion  which  it 
was  politic  to  conciliate.  The  objections,  which  I  felt  it  to  be  my  duty 
to  urge  against  this  Expedition,  were,  amongst  others,  that  the  means 
were  obviously  inapplicable  to  its  professed  object.”  Normanby  to 
Palmerston,  June  12,  1849. 


!6o  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [160 

patch  (to  Lord  Palmerston  reported :  “  a  general  impression  is 
abroad 

that  the  precipitation  which  has  marked  the  proceedings  of  the 
French  government  with  regard  to  the  Expedition  to  Civita- 
Vecchia  is  mainly  attributable  to  electioneering  purposes.  Some 
of  the  heads  of  the  clergy  are  said  to  have  boasted  that  they 
could  dispose  of  a  million  votes  according  as  this  step  was  or 
was  not  taken. 

“  Even  those  with  whom  the  measure  originated  ”,  affirmed 
Lord  Normanby,  “  admit  confidentially  such  to  be  the 
principal  object  they  have  in  view.”  1  Corcelle,  it  is  true, 
scouted  the  idea  that  the  intervention  was  undertaken  for 
a  selfish  political  motive;  but  he  gave  his  case  away  by 
somewhat  naively  remarking :  “  I  should  not  have  blamed 
him  [General  Cavaignae]  for  thinking  a  little  of  the  public 
approval  of  a  good  deed.”  The  Correspondant ,  which 
supported  General  Cavaignae,  although  somewhat  luke¬ 
warmly,  argued  that  it  mattered  little  if  such  a  good  deed 
had  been  prompted  by  selfish  motives :  “  One  begins  in 
egotism  and  ends  in  virtue.”  2 

The  project  of  intervention,  however,  hastily  undertaken 
and  badly  executed,  was  as  unfortunate  for  the  cause  of 
General  Cavaignae  as  it  was  futile  for  the  rescue  of  the 
Pope.  The  orders  for  the  embarkation  of  the  troops,  which 
had  been  despatched  on  the  26th  of  November,  had  reached 
Toulon  and  Marseilles  only  on  the  twenty-ninth,  the  day 
before  the  arrival  of  Corcelle.  Consequently  his  sailing 
was  delayed.  In  the  meantime  a  despatch  reached  Mar¬ 
seilles  announcing  that  the  Pope  had  fled  from  Rome  and 
had  reached  Gaeta  in  safety.  Bastide,  the  Minister  of 


1  Corcelle,  op.  cit.,  pp.  5  et  seq. 

2  Correspondant,  Dec.  9,  1848. 


FIRST  INTERVENTION  AT  ROME 


161 


161] 

Foreign  Affairs,  also  received  this  news  on  the  1st  of  De¬ 
cember,  and  at  once  despatched  a  message  to  Corcelle,  in¬ 
forming  him  that  it  indicated  a  new  line  of  conduct  for 
him.  The  latter  therefore  sailed  on  the  2nd  of  December 
for  Gaeta  leaving  the  troops  still  in  port.1  Lord  Normanby, 
who  from  the  very  first  had  opposed  the  sending  of  troops, 
arguing  that  an  infantry  force  was  unsuited  to  the  pur¬ 
pose  for  which  it  was  intended,  and  inadequate  for  the  pro¬ 
tection  of  the  Pope  should  it  disembark,  now  urged  the  im¬ 
mediate  cancellation  of  the  expedition.2  Bastide  appeared 
to  agree  with  him  and  went  to  consult  General  Cavaignac. 
But  the  latter  was  loth  to  cancel  the  expedition.  At  a  public 
gathering  on  the  evening  of  the  4th  of  December,  he  an¬ 
nounced  that  Corcelle  had  sailed  and  that  the  troops  were  to 
follow  the  next  day.3  “  I  exclaimed  with  natural  sur¬ 
prise  ”,  said  Normanby,  “‘And  the  troops  to  follow? r 
‘  Certainly  ’,  replied  General  Cavaignac,  ‘  as  we  do  not 
yet  know  positively  where  the  Pope  is/  On  Lord  Nor- 
manby’s  objecting  that  the  Minister  for  Foreign  Affairs  had 
given  him  a  distinct  assurance  of  a  contrary  character,  the 
general  said :  “  But  I  never  told  you  they  should  not  go.” 
At  an  interview  which  Normanby  had  with  him  the  follow¬ 
ing  morning,  General  Cavaignac,  who  in  the  meantime  had 
received  word  of  the  Pope’s  continued  stay  at  Gaeta,  at¬ 
tempted  to  explain  his  words  away.  The  expedition  was 
then  cancelled.4 

1  Normanby  to  Palmerston,  Dec.  1 ;  Ami  de  la  Religion,  Dec.  7. 

1  Ibid. 

3  Ibid.,  Dec.  7,  1848. 

4  Before  the  intelligence  had  been  received  that  the  Pope  intended  to 
remain  at  Gaeta,  the  wildest  and  most  conflicting  reports  spread  concern¬ 
ing  the  intentions  of  his  Holiness.  According  to  some  the  Pope  had 
sailed  for  France;  and  the  Minister  of  Worship  and  Education  actually 
went  to  Marseilles  to  give  him  a  fitting  welcojne  on  his  landing.  Ac¬ 
cording  to  others  the  government  was  preparing  the  Palace  at  Fon¬ 
tainebleau  to  place  at  his  disposal. 


jfe  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [162 

The  action  of  the  government  in  undertaking  an  inter¬ 
vention  on  behalf  of  the  Pope  produced  a  considerable  sen¬ 
sation  in  religious  “  circles  as  well  as  some  enthusiasm  for 
the  government,  which  was  increased  by  the  momentary  fall¬ 
ing  off  from  Louis  Napoleon  as  a  consequence  of  the  asso¬ 
ciation  of  his  cousin,  the  Prince  of  Canino,  with  the  party 
in  Rome  which  had  assassinated  Rossi  ”.1  “  France  speaks, 

the  Pope  will  be  free,”  declared  the  Ere  Nouvelle.  “  And 
since  the  Republic  puts  its  sword  at  the  service  of  the 
Church  the  alliance  of  Catholicism  and  democracy  is  con¬ 
summated.  We  do  not  believe  that,  since  the  French  Re¬ 
volution,  a  more  solemn  moment  has  dawned  in  the  world.”  2 
The  Alliance ,  the  religious  journal  of  Nantes,  commenting 
on  the  zeal  shown  by  the  government  on  behalf  of  the  Pope, 
said:  “  If  we  had  still  to  pronounce  on  the  question  of 
President,  the  decision  which  General  Cavaignac  has  just 
made,  would  suffice  to  determine  our  action.”  3  Even  the 
Univers  almost  inclined  towards  his  cause  as  a  conse¬ 
quence. 

This  morning  [it  affirmed],  in  spite  of  what  we  find  satis¬ 
fying  in  the  electoral  manifesto  of  Louis  Bonaparte,  we  had, 
we  confess,  almost  decided  to  recommend  the  candidature  of 
M.  Cavaignac  to  the  Catholics.  It  is  no  longer  in  France  that 
the  liberty  of  the  Church  is  at  stake,  but  at  Rome.  And  what 
has  been  announced  to  us  of  the  disposition  of  the  President 
of  the  Council  in  face  of  the  situation  that  confronts  the 
Vicar  of  Jesus  Christ  seems  to  justify  and  demand  our  most 
ardent  support.4 

1  Normanby  to  Palmerston,  Dec.  10,  1848.  Normanby,  A  Year  of  revo¬ 

lution,  vol.  ii,  pp.  355-356. 

3  Nov.  28. 

3  Quoted  from  the  Ere  nouvelle,  Dec.  3,  1848. 

4  Univers,  November  29,  1848. 


X63]  FIRST  INTERVENTION  AT  ROME  163 

“  Good  opinions  do  not  suffice  ”,  it  declared,  “  actions  which 
conform  with  them  are  necessary.”  1 

But  the  events  that  followed  tended  to  neutralize  the 
effect  that  was  first  produced  by  the  project  of  intervention 
at  Rome.  i 

When  the  real  object  of  all  these  ministerial  measures,  which 
was  avowed  in  private,  became  known  to  the  public,  they  lost 
their  effect;  and  when  it  was  further  ascertained  that  the 
Pope  never  had  any  present  intention  of  coming  to  France,  the 
government  found  they  had  excited  the  most  dangerous  feel¬ 
ing  on  the  eve  of  an  election,  disappointment  founded  on 
deceit.2 


Furthermore,  dissatisfaction  was  expressed  that  the  govern¬ 
ment  did  not  seek  to  do  more  than  merely  to  safeguard  the 
personal  liberty  of  the  Pope. 

All  Catholics  congratulate  the  government  for  the  attitude  that 
it  has  just  taken  towards  the  Pope  Pius  IX  [declared  the 
Patrie ]  ;  but  it  is  necessary  to  recognize  that  the  spiritual 
authority  of  the  Holy  See  is  unable  to  be  separated  from  its 
temporal  authority.  To  protect  the  one  without  safeguarding 
the  other  would  be  to  misunderstand  the  nature  and  the  extent 
of  the  duty  towards  the  Papacy.3 

Even  the  journals  that  supported  General  Cavaignac  could 
ill  conceal  their  disappointment  that  his  measures  had  not 
been  more  far-reaching;  while  those  who  tended  to  oppose 
him  were  loud  in  their  denunciation.  “  It  is  without  doubt 
worthy  of  France,”  said  the  kre  Nouvelle,  “  to  offer  the 
hospitality  of  a  great  people  to  the  exiled  pontiff ;  it  is  more 
worthy  of  her  to  guarantee  him  Pis  rights  and  an  authority 

1  December  2,  1848. 

2  Normanby  to  Palmerston,  Dec.  10,  1848. 

3  Quoted  from  Ere  nouvelle,  November  30,  1848. 


j64  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [164 

necessary  to  the  world  ” — by  which  authority  it  meant  his 
temporal  sovereignty.1 

In  the  question  of  Rome  [remarked  the  Correspondant],  the 
government  has  understood  how  to  preserve  its  dignity  abroad ; 
but  its  intentions  at  bottom  are  far  from  being  reassuring.  .  .  . 
They  will  surround  the  Pope  with  the  greatest  honors,  but 
they  are  compelled  to  fraternize  with  the  Roman  Republic 
which  without  doubt  is  already  proclaimed.  The  position  is 
a  false  one  and  the  intention  equivocal.2 

The  attitude  taken  by  the  government  [said  the  Voix  de  Id 
Verite],  imposes  some  restrictions  on  the  congratulations  of 
the  Catholics  in  this  grave  affair.  To  separate  the  spiritual 
authority  of  the  Holy  See  from  its  temporal  in  the  protection 
accorded  by  France,  is  to  fail  to  comprehend  the  nature  and 
the  extent  of  the  duties  that  the  eldest  son  of  the  Church  is 
called  upon  to  perform  towards  the  Papacy.3 

The  Univers,  on  the  other  hand  made  no  attempt  to  hide  its 
dissatisfaction  with  the  adtion  of  General  Cavaignac. 
“  The  conduct  of  the  government  in  the  affairs  of  Rome 
revolts  us  ”,  it  declared.4  “  As  to  the  mission  of  de  Cor- 
celle,  it  is  a  fantasy.”  It  accused  the  executive  of  attempt- 
ting  to  conceal,  under  an  appearance  of  chivalry,  moral 
complicity  with  the  revolutionaries  at  Rome.’-  Even  if  the 
mission  of  Corcelle,  as  it  is  outlined  in  his  instructions,  suc¬ 
ceeds,  what  will  you  have  done  ?  it  asked  the  government. 

You  will  have  assisted  that  violent  minority  in  consummating 
the  revolution  which  it  has  attempted ;  you  will  have  dethroned 
the  Pope  under  pretext  of  saving  him ;  you  will  have  snatched 
away  from  Rome  the  only  flag  around  which  honest  folk, 

1  kre  nouvelle,  November  30,  1848. 

2  Correspondant ,  December  2. 

3  Quoted  from  the  Univers  of  December  1,  1848. 

4  Univers,  December  7,  1848. 


FIRST  INTERVENTION  AT  ROME 


165] 


who,  there  as  everywhere,  form  the  majority,  would  have  been 
able  to  rally  themselves ;  you  will  have  given  over  the  city  and! 
the  States  of  the  Church — perhaps  half  of  the  Peninsula — to 
an  anarchy  without  counterpoise  and  without  remedy.1 

“  The  government  of  the  Republic  ”,  it  complained,  “  will 
do  nothing  to  merit  the  approval  of  the  Catholics,  inasmuch 
as  the  impulse  that  has  overturned  the  throne  of  Pius  IX 
came  from  France  in  February.”  2  The  National  openly1 
declared  that  the  government  could  not  guarantee  the 
authority  of  the  Sovereign  Pontiff ;  but  it  also  asserted  that 
if  Austria  interfered  in  Italy,  France  would  have  to  step 
in  to  make  a  demonstration  in  favor  of  Italian  democracy. 
“We  demand  of  the  Catholic  papers  which  sustain  the  can¬ 
didate  of  the  National  [General  Cavaignac]  with  so  much 
warmth,  what  they  think  of  this  avowal?”3  Scarcely 
less  severe  was  the  judgment  of  the  Ami  de  la  Religion. 
It  complained  that  the  government  had  refused  to  act  when 
first  informed  of  the  peril  in  which  the  Pope  was  placed. 
Then,  when  the  liberty  and  the  very  life  of  the  Sovereign 
Pontiff  were  at  stake,  it  did  nothing  beyond  extend  an  in¬ 
vitation  to  take  refuge  in  France  and  send  to  Toulon  and 
Marseilles  orders  that  were  not  seriously  executed.  In 
short  it  concluded:  “Nothing  is  done  for  the  authority  of 
the  Sovereign  Pontiff,  nothing  for  the  Holy  See,  nothing 
for  the  Pope.”  4 

But  the  Catholics  were  dissatisfied  with  General  Cav¬ 
aignac  for  other  reasons  than  for  his  attitude  towards  Rome. 
Early  in  the  presidential  campaign  the  Catholic  leaders  de¬ 
termined,  before  giving  General  Cavaignac  their  support, 


1  Univers,  November  30,  1848. 

2  Ibid.,  December  7,  1848. 

3  Ibid.,  December  6,  1848;  cf.  Ami  de  la  religion,  December  7,  1848. 

4  Ami  de  la  religion ,  December  7,  1848. 


!66  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [166 

to  sound  him  on  his  attitude  towards  the  educational  ques¬ 
tion,  which  was  always  dominant.  In  particular  they  wished 
the  withdrawal  of  the  project  that  Carnot  had  brought  for¬ 
ward  on  the  30th  of  June,  which  for  several  reasons  was 
offensive  to  them.1  According  to  Lecanuet,  Montalembert 
sent  Corcelle  to  broach  the  subject  to  Cavaignac.  “  The 
Catholics  have  a  great  many  votes  at  their  disposal  ”,  he  be¬ 
gan.  “  Before  contracting  to  vote  for  you,  they  call  your 
attention  to  the  fact  that  the  Carnot  project  on  primary  in¬ 
struction  wounds  their  religious  conscience.  They  request 
that  this  project  be  withdrawn.  This  is  their  first  condi¬ 
tion.”  But  General  Cavaignac  refused  in  a  none  too  dip¬ 
lomatic  manner.  The  “  Right  ”  had  compelled  him  to  sacri¬ 
fice  the  ministry  of  Carnot;  and  now  he  declined  to  make 
this  other  sacrifice.  “  I  am  unable  to  abandon  his  bill  ”,  he 
replied,  “  since  I  approve  the  principle  that  inspired  it.  All 
I  am  willing  to  promise  is  to  postpone  the  discussion,  study 
the  project,  and  admit  such  modifications  as  it  may  please 
the  Assembly  to  introduce  ”.2 

Many  of  the  Catholics  also  disliked  and  feared  the  follow¬ 
ing  of  General  Cavaignac  that  grouped  itself  around  the 
National,  which  after  the  Revolution  of  February  had  called 
upon  the  Catholic  Church  to  democratize  itself.  “  Cav¬ 
aignac!  ”  exclaimed  one  election  manifesto,  “  He  represents 
the  past  with  all  his  anti-religious  cortege  of  1793.”  “  He 

is  the  agent  of  the  National,  that  old  enemy  of  religion  and 
the  clergy,  that  implacable  foe  of  Catholicism.”  3  “  M. 

Cavaignac  is  ardently  supported  by  the  National  ”,  affirmed 
the  Univers.  “  It  is  a  misfortune  for  him.”  4 

1  Cf.  infra,  chap.  vii. 

2  Lecanuet,  Montalembert,  vol.  ii,  p.  416;  Univers,  July  28,  1876;  cf. 
Univers,  December  7,  1848  and  Dec.  2. 

3  Re cneil  biographique  du  clerge  sous  la  republique:  an  clerge  et  d 
leurs  abonnes  (Paris,  November  29,  1848). 

4  Univers,  December  2,  1848. 


l6y\  FIRST  INTERVENTION  AT  ROME  j6y 

General  Cavaignac  has  certain  political  friendships  [declared 
the  Ami  de  la  Religion ],  which  are  of  such  a  nature  as  td 
compromise  him  irreparably.  It  is  quite  time  for  him  to 
break  with  them  and  renounce  them  forever.  And  he  should 
not  only  separate  himself  from  the  Reforme  and  the  Mountain, 
but  he  should  also  spurn  all  solidarity  with  the  exclusive  and 
irreligious  party  that  the  National  represents.1 

Nevertheless  there  was  one  group  within  the  Church,  of 
which  the  Ere  Nouvelle  was  the  chief  organ,  that  warmly 
championed  the  cause  of  General  Cavaignac. 

We  believe  [it  affirmed]  that  the  organization  of  the  demo¬ 
cratic  government  under  the  republican  form  is  necessary  for 
France.  We  find  in  the  advent  of  the  Republic  the  meaning 
of  the  past  sixty  years;  we  perceive  in  the  struggle  enlisted 
against  it  a  conflict  with  the  ideas  and  with  the  facts  to  which, 
according  to  us,  the  future  belongs.  .  .  .  We  support  M.  Cav¬ 
aignac  ....  because  he  is  the  man  whom  the  situation  de¬ 
mands;  because  in  the  Days  of  June  the  general  saved 
such  a  Republic  as  France  desires;  because  he,  more  than 
any  other  candidate,  represents  the  republican  opinion  in  its 
moderation  and  strength.2 

Furthermore  the  Ere  Nouvelle  supported  General  Cavaignac 
because  it  believed  in  the  reconciliation  of  Catholicism  with 
democracy.  “  Democrats  and  Catholics  ”,  it  maintained; 
“  we  shall  vote  for  M.  Cavaignac  ”.3 

Some  of  the  higher  clergy  also  supported  the  moderate 
Republic  in  the  person  of  General  Cavaignac,  the  most  not¬ 
able  and  energetic  amongst  them  being  Monseigneur  Fayet, 
bishop  of  Orleans,  who  was  also  a  member  of  the  Con¬ 
stituent  Assembly.  If  we  can  believe  the  Vrai  Catholique, 

1  Ami  de  la  religion,  December  7,  1848. 

2  kre  nouvelle,  December  4,  1848. 

3  Ibid. 


j68  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [168 

he  used  some  pressure  to  compel  the  clergy  of  his  diocese  to 
follow  his  example.1  But  he  also  went  further  and  pub¬ 
lished  a  letter  in  which  he  stated  that,  after  careful  con¬ 
sideration,  the  unanimous  opinion  of  the  bishops  and  of  the 
other  ecclesiastics  in  the  National  Assembly  was  that,  in 
view  of  the  situation  in  which  the  Church  of  France'  found 
itself,  the  “  choice  of  General  Cavaignac  for  the  Presidency 
of  the  Republic  offered  to  religion  better  guarantees  and  to 
the  country  greater  calm  and  stability  than  any  other  can¬ 
didate.  We  believe  also,”  he  continued,  “  that  the  clergy 
ought  to  cooperate  at  the  elections  and  make  use  of  all  its 
legitimate  influence  there.”  2 

Not  all  the  clergy,  however,  thought  as  the  bishop  of 
Orleans.  His  letter  was  replied  to  by  Monseigneur  Parisis, 
bishop  of  Langres,  and  by  Abbe  Le  Blanc,  both  of  whom 
were  likewise  members  of  the  Assembly. 

I  believe  it  my  duty  [wrote  the  former],  in  my  own  name  and 
in  that  of  those  of  my  colleagues  with  whom  I  have  been  able 
to  confer,  to  declare  that  a  mandate  of  this  nature  has  not 
and  cannot  have  been  entrusted  to  anyone.  Ecclesiastics  are 
able  to  act  in  such  circumstances  only  as  plain  citizens. 

The  Abbe  Le  Blanc  called  the  attention  of  the  bishop  of 
Orleans  to  the  fact  that,  in  his  presence,  he  [the  Abbe  Le 
Blanc]  had  expressed  a  different  opinion.3  Indeed  many 
seem  to  have  maintained  an  attitude  of  cautious  reserve,  re¬ 
fusing  to  pronouce  for  the  one  or  for  the  other  candidate, 
counseling  the  clergy  to  study  the  situation  for  themselves, 
and  then  vote  as  their  consciences  directed. 

Do  not  heed  imprudent  insinuations,  and  exclude  the  party 

1  Le  vrai  catholique,  February,  1849. 

2  Ami  de  la  religion,  November  18,  1848. 

s  Ibid. 


FIRST  INTERVENTION  AT  ROME 


169] 


Spirit  [Cardinal  Bonald,  bishop  of  Lyon,  counseled  his  clergy]. 
Take  into  consideration  nothing  but  religion  and  France.  .  .  . 
Whose  is  the  hand  clever  enough  and  powerful  enough  to 
remedy  their  ills,  who  is  the  man  self-sacrificing  enough  to 
renounce  his  interests  for  the  interests  of  his  country,  his 
ambitions  for  his  country's  weal?  Who  is  the  candidate 
who  possesses  a  liberalism  broad  enough  to  respect  the  liberty 
of  the  father  of  the  family  in  the  education  of  his  children, 
the  liberty  of  him  who  ministers  at  the  altar  in  the  per¬ 
formance  of  his  duties,  and  the  liberties  of  the  citizen  in 
the  exercise  of  his  legitimate  rights?  Let  no  one  know  your 
secret.  Do  not  urge  others  to  adopt  your  choice;  for  that 
would  make  you  immediately  a  party  man,  whereas  in  the 
midst  of  political  agitations,  you  should  remain  always  the  man 
of  God.1 


Thus  there  was  no  unanimity  amongst  the  Catholics  in 
the  question  of  the  choice  of  a  president  for  the  Republic. 
Some  supported  General  Cavaignac  because  they  believed  in 
the  principles  for  which  he  stood,  while  others  were  inclined 
to  mistrust  those  very  same  principles.  Some  remained 
neutral,  while  others  openly  championed  the  cause  of  Louis 
Napoleon.  For  some  the  election  of  Louis  Napoleon  doubt¬ 
less  meant  a  Republic  of  stability  and  order,  while  for  others 
it  portended  its  destruction. 

Is  this  then  a  declaration  of  war  that  France  makes  against 
the  Republic,  in  the  name  of  order?  [asked  the  Ami  det  la \ 
Religion  when  the  result  of  the  presidential  election  had  be¬ 
come  known].  Yes  and  no!  [it  answered]  according  to  the 
manner  in  which  it  shall  please  the  Republic  to  conduct  itself. 
If  order  and  the  Republic  are  able  to  live  together,  France  will 
not  make  war  on  the  Republic.  But  if  experience  proves  that 
their  reconciliation  is  impossible,  France  will  not  hesitate  in 
her  choice.  .  .  .  Let  the  name  of  Napoleon  Bonaparte  not 

1  Ami  de  la  religion ,  December  5,  1848. 


jy0  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [iy0 

frighten  you  beyond  measure.  The  people  in  acclaiming  him 
give  you  the  choice  between  Consul  and  Emperor;  the  Consul, 
if  you  are  worthy  of  liberty;  the  Emperor,  if  your  ambitions 
and  your  follies  have  doomed  you  to  servitude.  .  .  .  France 
has  raised  itself  en  masse  against  socialism  on  the  one  hand, 
and  on  the  other,  against  the  coterie  of  conspirators  and 
rhetoricians  who,  for  ten  months,  have  exploited  it,  humbled 
it,  and  ruined  it.1 


1Ami  de  la  religion,  December  19,  1848. 


CHAPTER  V 


The  Catholics  and  the  Election  of  Louis  Napoleon 

i 

Louis  Napoleon  was  the  son  of  Hortense  Beauharnais 
and  Napoleon’s  brother  Louis,  whom  the  Emperor,  when 
he  was  providing  thrones  for  all  the  members  of  his  family, 
had  created  king  of  Holland.  The  youth  of  the  young 
prince,  which  coincided  with  the  Restoration,1  was  spent 
mostly  in  Switzerland  and  Italy,  where  his  studies  were 
supervised  by  his  mother.  But  although  his  education  was 
more  or  less  superficial,  he  had  been  carefully  schooled  in 
all  the  precepts  and  principles  of  the  Napoleonic  cult.  The 
gospel  on  which  he  had  been  strained  to  stake  his  faith  was 
Bonapartism.  Lord  Malmesbury,  who  met  him  at  his 
mother’s  house  in  Rome  in  1829,  found  him  already  con¬ 
vinced  that  he  was  destined  to  rule  over  France.2  This 
conviction  became  the  firmer,  when,  in  1832,  the  Duke  of 
Reichstadt,  the  son  of  Napoleon  I,  died  at  Vienna;  and  he 
immediately  began  to  regard  himself  as  the  heir  of  the 
Emperor  and  the  inheritor  of  the  Empire.3  Accordingly 
in  1836  at  Strasbourg  and  again  in  1840  at  Boulogne  he 

1He  was  born  in  1808. 

2 Fisher,  H.  A.  L.,  Bonapartism  (Oxford,  11914),  p.  131. 

3  The  adopted  son  of  Napoleon,  Eugene  de  Beauharnais,  had  died 
in  1824.  Eucien  Bonaparte  had  been  excluded  from  the  imperial 
succession  because  he  had  displeased  his  brother,  and  Joseph  and  Louis 
had  both  renounced  it.  A  decree  of  28  Floreal,  year  XII,  had  declared : 
In  default  of  an  heir  of  Napoleon,  either  natural,  legitimate,  or  adopted, 
the  imperial  dignity  should  devolve  on  Joseph.  Should  he  lack  male 
heirs,  the  succession  should  fall  on  Louis  and  his  heirs,  natural  or 
legitimate.  In  1831,  Prince  Louis’  elder  brother  died  while  taking  part 
in  an  insurrection  in  the  IRomagna.  Cf.  Thirria,  H.,  Napoleon  III  avant 
V Empire  (2nd  ed.,  Paris,  1895),  vol.  i,  p.  9. 

171]  171 


lj2  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [172 

attempted  to  rally  the  army  to  his  cause.  Declaring  that 
the  “  noble  spirit  of  the  Emperor  ”  spoke  through  him,  he 
appealed  to  the  French  soldiers  to  assist  him  in  entering 
into  his  inheritance.  But  bdth  attempts  were  ignominious 
failures,  and  instead  of  obtaining  him  a  throne,  brought 
down  on  him  the  ridicule  of  Europe.  Arraigned  for  con¬ 
spiracy  after  the  Boulogne  fiasco,  he  took  advantage  of  the 
occasion  to  deliver  an  address,  the  first  time  he  had  ever  had 
the  opportunity,  he  declared,  of  making  his  voice  heard  in 
France  and  of  speaking  freely  to  Frenchmen.  “  I  repre¬ 
sent  before  you,  he  said,  “  a  principle,  a  cause,  a  defeat :  the 
principle  is  the  sovereignty  of  the  people;  the  cause  that 
of  the  Empire;  the  defeat,  Waterloo/’  1  In  1846  he  escaped 
from  the  fortress  of  Ham  to  which,  after  the  Boulogne 
affair,  he  had  been  committed  for  life  imprisonment,  and 
made  his  way  to  London  where  he  resided  until  after  the 
overthrow  of  Louis-Philippe  and  the  proclamation  of  the 
Republic. 

But  during  his  years  of  imprisonment  and  exile  Louis 
Napoleon  had  not  been  idle :  he  had  been  perpetuating  the 
Napoleonic  legend,  which  Napoleon  himself  had  created  at 
St.  Helena.  “  The  Napoleonic  idea  ”,  he  was  declaring, 
“  is  not  an  idea  of  war,  but  a  social,  industrial,  commercial 
idea,  an  idea  of  humanity.  If  to  some  men  it  seems  ever 
surrounded  by  struggles,  the  reason  simply  is,  that  it  was, 
indeed,  too  long  enveloped  in  the  smoke  of  cannon  and 
the  dust  of  battle.”  2  But  this  was  not  the  will  of  the 
Emperor.  If  he  had  invoked  the  power  of  the  sword,  it 
was  “  to  found  and  not  to  destroy.”  His  projects  for 
France  and  Europe  were  projects  of  peace  and  prosperity, 

1  Thirria,  op.  cit.,  vol.  i,  p.  192. 

2  The  political  and  historical  works  of  Louis  Napoleon  Bonaparte 
(London,  1852),  vol.  i,  p.  349.  The  ideas  of  Napoleon.  This  was 
written  in  1839. 


THE  ELECTION  OF  LOUIS  NAPOLEON 


173 


1 73] 

which  the  hostility  of  the  European  powers  had  prevented 
him  from  accomplishing.1  “  Now  the  clouds  have  dispersed, 
and  men  discern  through  the  effulgent  glory  of  arms,  a 
civil  glory,  greater  and  more  enduring  ”.2  Louis  Napoleon 
found  the  cause  of  all  the  ills  that  afflicted  the  Restoration 
and  the  July  Monarchy  in  the  fact  that  Napoleon  had  not 
been  allowed  to  accomplish  his  beneficent  designs.  It 
therefore  followed  that  the  hope  of  France  was  to  be  found 
only  in  the  continuation  of  the  work  so  abruptly  terminated 
at  Waterloo;  in  reuniting  the  two  popular  causes,  that  of 
Napoleon  and  that  of  the  Republic.  “  With  the  name 
of  Napoleon  people  will  no  longer  fear  the  return  of  the 
terror;  with  the  name  of  the  Republic,  they  will  no  longer 
fear  the  return  of  absolute  power.”  3  Was  the  proclama¬ 
tion  of  the  Republic  in  1848,  then,  not  the  opportunity  of 
the  heir  of  Napoleon?  A  less  astute  man  than  Louis 
Napoleon  would  have  perceived  it. 

Louis  Napoleon  Bonaparte  was  “  essentially  a  copyist.”  4 
Lacking  the  genius  of  the  man  who  had  shaken  Europe  at 
the  beginning  of  the  nineteenth  century,  he  nevertheless 
felt  that  he  must  do  his  work.  By  inheritance,  therefore, 
as  well  as  by  training,  he  was  a  plotter;  but  being  a  dreamer 
rather  than  a  man  of  action,  he  was  constantly  making 
false  moves  and  compromising  both  his  followers  and  him¬ 
self.  Extremely  clever  and  fertile  in  conceiving  plans,  he 
was  hesitant  and  dilatory  in  executing  them.5  His  greatest 

1  Op.  cit.,  vol.  i ;  Ideas  of  Napoleon,  chap.  v. 

2  Ibid. 

3  Oeuvres,  vol.  i,  pp.  376  et  seq.;  Reveries  Politiques. 

4  The  phrase  is  de  Tocqueville’s.  Senior,  N.  W.,  Correspondence  and 
conversations  of  A.  de  Tocqueville  with  N.  IV.  Senior,  vol.  ii,  p.  16. 

5  Senior,  Conversations  with  M.  Thiers,  M.  Guizot  (London,  1878), 
vol.  i,  p.  35;  Thiers:  “The  President  acts  as  a  child  takes  medicine — 
after  having  poured  it  out  and  looked  at  it,  and  carried  it  to  his  lips, 
and  set  it  down  again  half  a  dozen  times — at  last,  however,  he  gulps 
it  down.”  Ibid.,  p.  45. 


!^4  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [jy 4 

moral  defect  was  “  his  ignorance  of  the  difference  between 
right  and  wrong.” 1  Nevertheless  Louis  Napoleon  was  not 
utterly  deficient  in  virtues.  He  possessed  an  abundance  of 
kindliness  and  sympathy.2  He  was  more:  or  less,  keenly 
alive  to  the  social  evils  of  the  day  and  -sought  their  remedy.3 
Although  he  was  firmly  convinced  that  he  was  destined  to 
rule  France,  and  was  not  over-scrupulous  in  the  methods 
which  he  employed  to  achieve  his  destiny,  yet,  after  his 
own  aggrandizement,  he  sincerely  wished  the  welfare  of 
the  people  and  the  prosperity  of  France. 

Such  was  the  man  who  offered  himself  for  election  to 
the  presidency  of  the  Republic.  But  the  revolution  of 
February  had  found  him  unprepared.'4  Not  only  was  he  an 
exile,  but  on  the  morrow  of  the  proclamation  of  the  pro¬ 
visional  government  he  possessed  only  a  handful  of  fol¬ 
lowers  in  France,  and  his  name  figured  so  little  in  the 
public  mind  that  his  candidature  for  the  Constituent  As¬ 
sembly  on  the  4th  of  June  escaped  the  notice  of  the  press 
until  after  he  had  been  elected.5  How  then  was  he  so  to 
attract  the  attention  of  the  country  that  he  could  triumph 
over  his  opponents  in  the  presidential  campaign?  By 
every  means  in  his  power.6  No  falsehood  was  left  untold, 
no  promise  unmade,  no  person  unflattered,  and  no  force 
neglected  that  might  contribute  towards  that  much  desired 
end.7  He  even  made  advances  towards  the  socialists; 8  and 

1  Senior,  de  T ocqueville,  vol.  ii,  p.  205. 

2  Ibid. 

3  Cf.  his  Extinction  du  pauperisme,  which  appeared  in  1844. 

4  Ferrere,  Revelation  sur  la  propagande  Napoleonenne  faite  en  1S4S 
ct  1849  (Turin,  1863),  passim. 

5  Thirria,  op.  cit.,  vol.  i,  p.  278. 

6  Melun,  Memoir es,  vol.  ii,  p.  2 7. 

7  Ferrere,  op.  cit. 

8  Daniel  Stern,  Revolution  de  1848  (Paris,  1862),  2nd  ed.,  vol.  ii, 
P-  543- 


THE  ELECTION  OF  LOUIS  NAPOLEON 


175 


175] 

there  can  be  little  doubt  that  had  the  radicals  triumphed  in 
1848  instead  of  the  conservatives,  Louis  Napoleon  would 
have  been  found  posing  as  a  socialist  rather  than  as  a 
reactionary.  It  is  not  to  be  wondered  at,  therefore,  that, 
in  his  candidacy  for  the  presidency,  he  should  seek  to  cap¬ 
ture  the  support  of  the  Catholics  who  had  shown  themselves 
to  be  so  influential. 

Some  weeks  before  the  date  set  for  the  presidential  elec¬ 
tion  one  of  the  agents  of  Louis  Napoleon,  Boulay  de  la 
Meurthe,  made  advances  towards  Montalembert,  the  leader 
of  the  Parti  Catholique ,  and  urged  him  to  interview  the 
prince,  saying  that  he  would  be  charmed  with  him.  Mont¬ 
alembert,  after  some  hesitation,  finally  decided  to  do  so,  in¬ 
asmuch  as  General  Cavaignac  had  been  too  independent  and 
had  refused  to  give  the  guarantees  which  the  Parti  Catho¬ 
lique  desired.1  Accordingly,  on  the  30th  of  October  he 
had  his  first  interview  with  Louis  Napoleon.  “  His  man¬ 
ners  and  his  conversation  pleased  me  much  ”,  said  Montal¬ 
embert,  “  and  I  do  not  understand  from  what  source  his 
reputation  for  incapacity  has  been  derived.”  2  He  informed 
the  prince  that  before  the  Catholics  pledged  him  their  sup¬ 
port  they  wished  to  know  what  guarantees  he  was  willing 
to  make  for  their  principles.  Louis  Napoleon  apparently 
resented  the  bluntness  of  the  Catholic  orator  somewhat ;  for 
he  made  haste  to  reply  that  were  the  Catholics  to  offer  him 
three  million  votes,  they  would  receive  from  him  no  engage¬ 
ments  that  were  contrary  to  his  conscience  and  his  con¬ 
victions.3  Nevertheless  he  authorized  Montalembert  to 
state  the  difficulties  which  the  Catholics  found  in  his  can¬ 
didature  and  the  things  that  they  expected.  This  he  did 
with  alacrity. 

^Lecanuet,  Montalembert  (Paris,  1919),  vol.  ii,  pp.  416  et  seq. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  417,  cited  from  journal  of  Montalembert. 

3  Cf.  Ollivier,  V Empire  liberal,  vol.  ii,  p.  in. 


CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [176 

“  You  are  accused,”  said  Montalembert,  “  of  having  for¬ 
merly  conspired  against  the  Pope,  and  of  being  affiliated 
with  several  socialistic  and  revolutionary  sects.  It  is  said, 
moreover,  that  the  principle  of  nationalities  is  one  of  your 
favorite  doctrines,  and  that  for  this  reason  the  Italian 
patriots  have  founded  the  greatest  hopes  on  you.” 

The  prince  again  seemed  somewhat  annoyed  at  this  re¬ 
collection  of  the  past;  and  Montalembert,  perceiving  that  he 
had  committed  an  indiscretion,  was  about  to  apologize, 
when  the  former  seized  him  by  the  hand  and  exclaimed : 

“I  understand  your  scruples,  M.  de  Montalembert;  you  wish 
to  give  your  support  only  to  a  candidate  whose  past  life  will 
be  a  guarantee  for  the  future.  You  have  requested  me  to 
reply  without  restraint:  I  should  be  ungrateful  not  to  do  so 
.  .  .  .  I  have  indeed  taken  part  in  insurrections  against  the 
Holy  See,  and  I  have  had  the  misfortune  to  lose  my  brother 
thereby.  But  that  is  one  of  the  deeds  that  I  regret  most.  I 
shall  repair  it,  if  God  spares  my  life.  That  is  the  candid 
truth.  As  to  being  affiliated  with  any  Italian  sect  whatsoever, 
I  assure  you  that  there  is  no  truth  in  it.  I  am  too  fond  of 
liberty,  especially  personal  liberty,  to  have  done  that.  Like 
you,  in  your  admirable  speech  on  the  Sunderbund,  I  believe 
that  radicalism,  and  more  particularly  Carbonarism  is  the 
direct  opposite  of  liberty.”  1 

But  it  was  not  merely  disavowal  of  the  past  that  Montal¬ 
embert  desired :  it  was  above  all  pledges  for  the  future  which 
he  sought.  On  two  points  in  particular  he  wished  to  know 
the  mind  of  the  prince-candidate :  his  attitude  towards  liberty 
of  instruction,  and  towards  freedom  of  religious  associa¬ 
tions,  both  of  which  the  Parti  Catholique  had  long  sought. 

1  Corses  pondance  de  Montalembert  avec  Vabbe  Texier  (Paris,  1899), 
pp.  250-252.  This  account  is  taken  from  a  letter  of  Abbe  Texier  to 
Monseigneur  Buissas,  bishop  of  Limoges,  dated  Nov.  14,  1848.  The 
former  had  received  it  in  a  letter  from  Montalembert  dated  November 
11,  1848. 


THE  ELECTION  OF  LOUIS  NAPOLEON 


1 77 


177] 

As  to  liberty  of  instruction,  answered  the  Prince,  I  desire  as 
much  of  it  as  liberty  has  a  right  to  demand.  “  I  wish  it 
complete,  free,  without  reserve,  as  in  the  United  States,  in 
Belgium  and  in  England.  ...”  As  to  the  other  point,  “  I 
acknowledge  to  you  ”,  he  said,  “  that  I  do  not  like  the  con¬ 
vents.”  He  did  not  ignore,  he  continued,  the  great  ser¬ 
vices  that  they  had  rendered,  and  the  great  things  that 
they  had  done.  But  he  added :  “  I  believe  that  their  day  is 
passed  and  that  to-day  they  are  repellent  to  the  ideas  of  the 
age.” 

Montalembert  contended  that  religious  associations  should 
be  permitted  wherever  liberty  existed. 

“Without  doubt”  [responded  the  prince]  “and  I  regard 
that  right  as  incontestable.  Do  not  think  me  an  enemy  of 
prayer:  I  am  a  Catholic,  not  perhaps  as  good  a  one  as  you, 
but  still  I  am  one,  and  I  revere  all  the  traditions.” 

“Ah!  Well!”  [said  Montalembert  finally]  “you  should  re¬ 
member  this  conversation,  and  if  you  desire  the  votes  of  the 
Catholics,  give  them  on  these  two  points  guarantees  that  will 
satisfy  them.” 

“It  is  very  grave”  [replied  Louis  Napoleon]:  “I  need! 
longer  to  reflect  over  it.” 

“We  shall  wait”  [retorted  Montalembert]  d 

The  answer  to  Montalembert  was  contained  in  the  elec¬ 
tion  manifesto  that  Louis  Napoleon  issued  on  the  27th  of 
November,  1848. 2  After  affirming  that,  whatever  the  re¬ 
sult  of  the  elections  might  be,  his  support  would  be  assured 

r 

1  Univers,  July  28,  1876.  This  part  of  the  conversation  was  recounted 
to  Louis  Veuillot,  who  wrote  it  down.  In  1876,  on  going  through  some 
old  papers,  he  ran  across  it  and  published  it  in  the  Univers. 

2  Thirria,  Napoleon  Hi  avant  V empire,  vol.  i,  p.  462.  Thiers  told 
Senior  that  Louis  Napoleon  begged  him  to  look  at  his  manifesto.  “  I 
told  him,”  said  Thiers,  “  that  it  was  detestable,  full  of  socialism,  and 
bad  French,  and  sent  him  back  to  write  a  new  one.”  Senior,  Con¬ 
versations  with  Thiers,  vol.  i,  p.  35. 


jyg  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [iy& 

to  the  government  that  should  effectively  protect  “  religion, 
the  family,  property,  the  eternal  bases  of  all  society  ”,  he 
added:  “  To  protect  religion  and  the  family  is  to  guarantee 
freedom  of  worship  and  liberty  of  instruction.”  1 

Louis  Napoleon,  in  his  eagerness  to  capture  the  support 
of  everyone  who  possessed  a  “  voice  or  a  pen  ”,  proposed 
that  the  editor-in-chief  of  the  Univers  should  have  an  in¬ 
terview  with  him.  But  Louis  Veuillot  curtly  refused,  re¬ 
plying  that  Montalembert  was  the  leader  of  the  Parti  Catho - 
lique,  that  he  was  familiar  with  its  aims  and  wishes,  and 
that  no  one  else  had  any  more  authority  to  speak  in  its 
name  than  he.2 

But  besides  endeavoring  to  capture  the  support  of  Mon¬ 
talembert  and  the  Parti  Catholique  which  he  represented, 
Louis  Napoleon  also  made  a  bid  for  that  of  the  Social 
Catholics  through  the  Vioomte  de  Melun.  Melun  relates  3 
that  one  morning  he  received  a  visit  from  an  old  College 
friend,  Henri  de  Ruolz,  who  announced  that  he  had  come 
to  make  a  somewhat  astonishing  proposal  to  him. 

You  know  [he  explained]  that  Prince  Louis  Napoleon  is 
here  canvassing  for  his  election  to  the  presidency.  He  knows 
what  you  have  done  for  the  relief  of  the  poor  and  for  the 
welfare  of  the  people,  and  he  desires  to  see  you  and  consult 
you  regarding  means  to  assure  the  triumph  of  your  ideas, 
which  are  also  his. 

*“  Louis  Napoleon,”  said  Melun,  “in  order  to  gain  the  vote  of  the 
Catholics  had  made  it  (liberty  of  instruction)  one  article  of  his 
presidential  program  and  of  his  election  circulars.”  Memoires,  vol.  ii, 
p.  60.  A  propos  of  this  question  it  is  interesting  to  compare  a  statement 
that  Louis  Napoleon  made  on  the  13th  of  December,  1843,  when  he  had 
nothing  to  gain  from  the  Church:  “Unfortunately  the  clergy  in  France 
are  in  general  opposed  to  democratic  interests;  to  permit  them  to  estab¬ 
lish  schools  free  from  control  would  be  to  allow  them  to  teach  the 
people  hatred  of  the  Revolution  and  of  liberty.” 

3  Louis  Veuillot,  Le  Parti  Catholique,  p.  41. 

3  Memoires,  vol.  ii,  pp.  27  et  seq. 


THE  ELECTION  OF  LOUIS  NAPOLEON 


179 


179] 

Melun  was  in  no  sense  a  Bonapartist  and  he  knew  Louis 
Napoleon  only  through  the  fiascos  of  Strasbourg  and  Bou¬ 
logne. 

I  strongly  suspected  [he  said]  that  he  desired  to  see  mej 
only  because  he  believed  that  I  had  a  certain  influence  over 
the  people  and  other  classes  of  society  as  a  consequence  of 
the  schools,  societies  and  patronages  which  I  had  founded. 
I  had  no  desire  to  make  myself  in  this  way  an  accomplice  of 
his  intrigues,  and  to  give  the  appearance,  by  frequenting  his 
lobby,  that  I  was  preparing  an  office  for  myself,  or  going  to 
salute  the  rising  sun.  I  refused  then  quite  plainly,  but  politely, 
alleging  that  the  Prince  and  I  could  employ  our  time  more 
profitably  than  in  fruitless  conversations. 

Two  days  afterwards,  however,  the  friend  of  Melun  re¬ 
turned  with  new  entreaties  and  a  fresh  argument.  Insinuat¬ 
ing  that  he  would  probably  be  elected,  Louis  Napoleon  de¬ 
clared  that  if  Melun  were  in  touch  with  him,  once  he  was 
seated  in  the  presidential  chair,  he  would  not  fait  to  favor 
the  development  of  his  works  of  charity  and  the  application 
of  his  ideas. 

This  consideration  [says  Melun]  determined  my  action.  I 
stipulated,  however,  three  conditions  to  our  meeting:  that  I 
should  not  be  obliged  to  go  to  his  residence ;  that  the  interview 
should  take  place  without  intermediary  or  witness ;  finally 
that  my  visit  should  in  no  wise  pledge  my  vote,  and  that  after¬ 
wards,  as  before,  I  should  be  free  to  choose  my  candidate  for 
the  presidency. 

The  answer  was  returned  that  Melun’s  conditions  were  ac¬ 
cepted;  and  the  hour  of  the  rendezvous  was  set  for  the 
following  day. 

Louis  Napoleon  greeted  me  with  thanks  for  responding 
to  his  request,  said  Melun,  and  added 

That  he  had  desired  to  see  me  because,  having  the  same  pas- 


!8o  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [180 

sion  as  I  for  the  happiness  of  the  people  and  likely  to  be  called 
to  a  position  which  would  permit  him  to  fulfil  his  good  in¬ 
tentions,  he  considered  it  very  important  to  be  in  touch  with 
men  who  had  devoted  their  lives  to  this  great  mission.  He 
was  aware  that  there  existed  amongst  religious  men  certain 
prejudices,  certain  fears,  against  the  ideas  and  the  doctrines 
which  would  control  his  government,  and  he  was  happy  to 
find  here  an  opportunity  to  make  known  to  that  part  of  society 
which  he  esteemed  most,  what  he  would  do  if  he  were  elected 
President  of  the  Republic.  “  Will  you,  then  I  pray  you  ”, 
added  he  with  the  most  amiable  air,  “  ask  me  all  the  questions 
which  interest  you  on  this  subject,  and  I  will  gladly  reply  in 
all  confidence  and  in  all  sincerity.” 

“  Since  this  is  so  ”,  replied  I,  “  allow  me,  Prince,  to  pro¬ 
pound  three  questions,  the  importance  of  which  you  will 
certainly  grasp,  and  which  will  go  straight  to  the  point  which 
you  assign  to  our  conversation,  the  one  religious,  another 
political,  the  third  social.” 

“  The  religious  question  concerns  the  great  interest  which, 
as  you  know,  to-day  engages  the  attention  of  all  Catholics,  the 
liberty  of  instruction.” 

“  On  this  point”,  Louis  Napoleon  hastened  to  say,  “we 
shall  be  quickly  agreed :  I  think,  as  do  the  'Catholics,  that  it 
is  a  right  belonging  to  the  heads  of  families,  to  select  the 
men  to  whom  they  confide  the  education  of  their  children; 
and  it  is  the  duty  of  the  government  to  make  it  easy  for  them  to 
choose  teachers  who  share  their  beliefs  and  their  doctrines, 
rather  than  to  combat  their  principles  of  religion,  of  morality 
and  even  of  politics,  in  the  minds  of  their  sons.  Liberty  of 
instruction  alone  is  capable  of  securing  them  such  teachers 
and  professors.  Accordingly,  while  maintaining  the  Univer¬ 
sity,  that  great  foundation  of  my  uncle,  the  monopoly  of  which 
was  justifiable  at  the  time  when  it  was  created,  if  I  attain 
power,  I  shall  hasten  to  have  prepared  a  law  which  will 
guarantee  to  the  country  liberty  of  instruction. 

[Melun  bowed  his  assent  and  continued  his  interrogation]. 
“  I  shall  now  ask  you  what  your  line  of  politics  will  be,  on 


jgj]  THE  ELECTION  OF  LOUIS  NAPOLEON  igr 

which  party  you  will  base  your  government,  what  will  be,  in 
a  word,  the  color  of  your  ministry? 

“  I  am  neither  an  extreme  reactionary,  nor  an  adherent  of 
the  old  regime  ”,  replied  Louis  Napoleon  smiling,  “  and  my 
government  will  not  be  that  of  a  party,  but  it  will  be  the  re¬ 
presentative  of  order  and  of  all  the  principles  on  which  rest 
the  peace  of  society.  I  shall  choose  my  ministers  from  the 
different  shades  of  the  great  party  of  order,  and  yours  1  will 
not  be  forgotten,  for  I  count  on  giving  the  portfolio  of  public 
instruction  to  one  of  your  friends,  Falloux.  What  is  now 
your  social  question? 

“  It  is  very  simple  ”,  said  I.  “  You  are  aware,  Prince,  in 
what  manner  the  duties  of  society,  and  above  all  of  the  state, 
have  been  represented  lately  towards  the  people,  its  work,  and 
its  ills.  Some  declare  that  the  state,  putting  itself  in  the 
place  of  individuals,  ought  to  correct  all  the  inequalities, 
abolish  all  the  woes,  make  itself  the  regulator  of  labor  and 
of  property,  assign  to  each  his  place,  his  work  and  his  wages, 
without  any  regard  to  the  liberty  or  to  the  rights  of  in¬ 
dividuals.  Others,  leaving  to  each  the  right  and  duty  of 
getting  on  in  the  world,  wish  the  government  to  be  completely 
disinterested,  and  not  to  concern  itself  with  affairs  of  this 
kind.  In  a  word  the  former  wish  the  state  to  do  all,  the  latter 
to  do  nothing.  To  which  will  you  listen? 

“  To  neither  of  these  ”,  he  replied.  “  I  shall  be  equally  re¬ 
mote  from  that  socialism  which  suppresses  liberty  and  from 
that  egotism  which  leaves  to  each,  whatever  may  be  his 
strength  and  his  resources,  the  responsibility  for  his  life.” 
Thereupon  [added  Melun]  he  unfolded  before  me  a  theory 
which  greatly  resembled  that  of  the  Catholics,  counting  espec¬ 
ially  on  charity  to  combat  poverty,  but  recognizing  the  duty 
of  the  state  to  support  such  works,  and  to  do  what  individual 
good  will  was  too  weak  to  accomplish.  I  had  read  some  of 
his  books,  products  of  his  meditations  in  the  prison  of  Ham, 
or  inspirations  arising  from  his  confidence  in  his  star;  and 


1  The  legitimist  party. 


!§2  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [182 

I  perceived  clearly  that  his  approach  to  power,  or,  if  one 
wishes,  the  desire  not  to  offend  anyone,  had  made  him  wiser 
and  more  practical.  In  a  word,  in  spite  of  my  distrust,  the 
legitimacy  of  which  I  was  later  to  recognize,  it  was  difficult 
for  me  on  this  occasion  to  discover  any  objection  to  his  ideas 
or  refutation  for  his  arguments.  .  .  . 

Melun  was  on  the  point  of  taking  his  departure  when  a 
fourth  question  occurred  to  him. 

“  The  situation  in  which  France  is  placed  ”,  said  I  to  him, 

“  with  its  Republic  in  the  midst  of  so  many  monarchies  is 
very  peculiar,  and  it  would  be  easy  to  find  a  pretext  for  war 
with  the  hope,  as  under  the  First  Republic,  of  attracting  as 
allies  the  peoples  eager,  under  its  flag,  to  recover  their  inde¬ 
pendence  or  their  autonomy.  Will  not  the  great  and  glorious 
souvenirs  of  your  uncle  and  his  popularity  appear  to  you  an 
invitation  to  follow  his  example?  And  will  not  your  advent 
be  the  signal  for  war  and  conquest? 

“  I  am  indebted  to  you”,  replied  Louis  Napoleon,  “  for  giv¬ 
ing  me  the  opportunity  to  declare  my  whole  mind  on  this 
point.  Yes,  my  uncle  has  made  great  and  glorious  wars,  and 
he  has  often  been  reproached  with  having  made  too  many. 

It  was  difficult  for  him  to  do  otherwise,  and  he  was  not  always 
the  one  who  provoked  war.  But  to-day  the  circumstances  are 
entirely  different,  and  I  declare  to  you  that  it  would  be  a 
crime  to  drag  France  into  a  war.  It  is  peace  that  she  needs; 
and  if  I  rule,  I  shall  certainly  give  it  to  her.” 

I 

The  interview  ended  with  the  declaration  on  the  part  of 
Louis  Napoleon  of  his  gratitude,  and  with  the  expression 
of  the  hope,  that,  if  he  were  elected  President,  Melun  would 
support  him  in  the  endeavor  to  accomplish  all  the  good  that  . 
they  both  desired.  The  latter  immediately  wrote  to  his 
brother  an  account  of  the  conversation,  which  he  concluded 
by  saying :  “  He  gave  me  the  best  of  receptions,  he  replied 
to  all  my  questions  in  a  most  interesting  manner,  he  pro- 


THE  ELECTION  OF  LOUIS  NAPOLEON 


i33] 


mised  me  a  place  in  his  court,  but  nevertheless  I  will  not 
vote  for  him.” 


I  perceived  [commented  Melun]  the  cleverness  of  the  candi¬ 
date  who  believed  that  he  could  gain  the  votes  of  the  Catholics 
and  charitable  workers,  by  talking  to  me  in  such  a  manner, 
while  in  the  street,  in  the  cabarets  and  elsewhere,  his  partizans 
were  buying  votes  with  other  promises  and  at  quite  another 
price.  Alas!  France  should  have  heard  that  day  as  I  did: 
“  The  Empire  is  liberty,  the  Empire  is  order,  the  Empire  is 
peace,”  and  have  realized  that,  the  votes  gained  and  the 
trick  played,  the  Empire  was  an  entirely  different  thing. 

But  Louis  Napoleon  sought  to  make  events  as  well  as 
promises  rally  the  Catholics  to  his  candidature.  Thus  he 
employed  the  action  of  the  government  in  the  question  of 
intervention  at  Rome  both  to  bring  discredit  upon  General 
Cavaignac  and  to  give  prestige  to  himself.  The  Univers  of 
the  2nd  of  December  had  criticized  him  severely  for  failing 
to  cast  his  vote  at  the  session  of  the  Assembly  on  the  30th 
of  November  in  support  of  the  government’s  project  on 
behalf  of  the  Pope.  Thus  his  habitual  practise  of  keep¬ 
ing  himself  in  the  background,  and  abstaining  from  all 
action  or  speech  that  might  compromise  him  in  the  eyes  of 
the  public,  drew  down  upon  him  the  criticism  of  the  very 
party  with  which  he  had  been  trying  to  curry  favor.  The 
next  day  appeared  a  cleverly  worded  letter  signed  by  Louis 
Napoleon,  which  more  than  repaired  the  damage  done  by 
his  abstention. 

\ 

Understanding  [he  affirmed]  that  there  have  been  comments 
on  my  abstention  from  the  vote  relative  to  the  expedition  to 
Civita-Vecchia,  I  believe  it  my  duty  to  declare  that,  while  hav¬ 
ing  decided  to  support  every  measure  calculated  to  guarantee 
effectively  the  liberty  and  the  authority  of  the  Sovereign  Pon¬ 
tiff,  I  have  not  been  able  to  support  by  my  vote  a  military  de- 


!g4  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [184 

monstration  that  seemed  to  me  both  dangerous  to  the  sacred 
interests  which  it  was  intended  to  protect,  and  of  a  nature  to 
compromise  the  peace  of  Europe.1 

The  Univers  showed  by  its  comment  that  it  was  not  slow, 
to  grasp  its  intent. 

The  government  [it  declared],  according  to  the  language  of 
M.  Cavaignac  and  of  M.  Dufaure,  has  thought  only  of  protect¬ 
ing  the  person  of  the  Holy  Father  and  of  guaranteeing  his  in¬ 
dividual  liberty.  In  this  letter,  M.  Louis  Napoleon  Bonaparte 
speaks  of  the  liberty  and  of  the  authority  of  the  Sovereign 
Pontiff.  We  hope  that  he  has  inserted  this  phrase  designedly, 
and  if  such  should  be  the  case,  that  he  will  remember  it.2 

It  was  not  merely  his  abstention  from  the  vote  of  the 
30th  of  November,  however,  that  Louis  Napoleon  had  to 
explain.  As  early  as  its  issue  of  the  29th  of  November, 
the  Ere  Nouvelle  had  called  attention  to  the  fact  that  a 
Bonaparte,  the  Prince  of  Canino  and  cousin  of  the  Presi¬ 
dential  candidate,  figured  amongst  the  demagogues  of  Rome 
who  had  oppressed  the  Pope.  The  Univers  in  several  of 
its  issues  pointed  out  the  same  fact,  casting  aspersions  on 
the  name  of  Bonaparte  because  of  it. 3  And  the  Ami  de  la 
Religion  declared: 

* 

We  are  unable  to  keep  silent.  In  the  first  rank  of  the  enemies 
and  persecutors  of  Pius  IX,  there  is  a  man,  the  Prince  of 
Canino,  whose  acts  excite  the  just  execration  of  the  world, 
and  whose  name  casts  a  deplorable  reflection  even  on  that  of 

1  Univers,  December  3,  1848.  The  biographer  of  Montalembert  affirms 
that  he  (Montalembert)  suggested  to  Louis  Napoleon  that  he  write  this 
letter  to  the  press.  Lecanuet,  Montalembert,  vol.  iii,  p.  443. 

2  Univers,  December  3,  1848. 

5  Notably  Univers  of  December  2  and  6,  1848.  In  its  issue  of  Dec.  2 
it  wrote:  “,M.  Bonaparte  does  not  brag  about  his  cousin  Canino,  but 
neither  does  he  disown  him.” 


THE  ELECTION  OF  LOUIS  NAPOLEON 


185] 


Louis  Napoleon.  A  categorical  and  solemn  disavowal  is 
necessary  to  reassure  them.1 

Such  hints  again  quite  overcame  the  customary  reserve  of 
Louis  Napoleon  and  he  published  in  the  following  issue 
of  the  Ami  de  la  Religion  a  letter  addressed  to  the  Apostolic 
Nuncio,  by  means  of  which  he  sought  to  put  an  end  to  all 
rumors  which  associated  him  with  his  Roman  cousin. 


For  a  long  time  [he  declared]  I  have  had  no  relations  what¬ 
soever  with  the  eldest  son  of  Lucien  Bonaparte;  and  I  de¬ 
plore  with  all  my  heart  that  he  has  not  felt  that  the  main¬ 
tenance  of  the  temporal  sovereignty  of  the  venerable  head  of 
the  Church  was  as  intimately  connected  with  the  genius  of 
Catholicism  as  with  the  liberty  and  the  independence  of  Italy.2 

These  declarations  in  favor  of  Pius  IX,  combined  with 
the  report  that  Louis  Napoleon  had  offered  the  portfolio 
of  Worship  and  Education  to  the  Comte  de  Falloux,  had 
the  effect  of  inclining  the  Ami  de  la  Religion  and  the  Univers, 
with  the  party  which  they  represented,  towards  his  cause.3 
But  they  also  determined  the  policy  which  he  was  to  follow* 
after  his  election.  If  he  had  not  actually  committed  him¬ 
self  to  undertake  an  expedition  in  favor  of  the  Pope,  and 
to  prepare  an  educational  law  which  would  satisfy  the 
Catholics,  he  had  aroused  expectations  which  lie  afterwards 
found  it  impossible  to  disregard. 

All  these  bids  on  the  part  of  Louis  Napoleon  for  the  sup¬ 
port  of  the  Catholics  did  not  succeed  in  rallying  them  un¬ 
animously  to  the  support  of  his  candidature.  However  much 
the  Ami  de  la  Religion  and  the  Univers  might  incline  to¬ 
wards  his  cause,  they  did  not  forsake  their  position  of  pro- 

1  Ami  de  la  religion,  December  7,  1848. 

1  The  Abbe  Dupanloup  confided  to  his  biographer  that  he  was  in¬ 
strumental  in  obtaining  this  letter  from  Louis  Napoleon.  Lagrange, 
Vie  de  Mgr.  Dupanloup,  vol.  i,  p.  468. 

3  Ami  de  la  religion,  Dec.  7,  1848. 


xS 6  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [186 

fessed  neutraiiity.1  On  the  other  hand  the  Ere  Nouvelle 
was  openly  hostile.2  Not  only  did  lit  oppose  him  on  the 
ground  that  his  flag  was  fatally  a  monarchical  one,3  but  also 
because  it  perceived  in  him  “  not  peace  but  war,  not  pros¬ 
perity  but  disorder,  not  tranquillity  hut  the  tempest.”  In  a 
word  the  presidency  of  Louis  Napoleon  would  be  “  only  a 
precipitation  towards  the  unknown  ”.4  The  Ere  Nouvelle 
cautioned  the  clergy  not  to  make  themselves  the  accomplices 
of  all  shades  of  the  reaction  by  falling  under  the  illusions 
of  Bonapartism.5  The  attitude  of  the  episcopate  was  sim¬ 
ilarly  divided.  Some  of  the  bishops,  as  we  have  seen,  de¬ 
clared  for  General  Cavaignac,  while  others  maintained  a 
neutral  attitude.6  Amongst  the  lower  clergy,  some  of  the 

1  Univers,  Dec.  7,  1848. 

2  The  Evenement  had  asserted  that  the  kind  of  president  France 
needed  was  a  thinker,  who  in  solitude  and  through  suffering  had 
worked  out  his  ideas.  “  But  this  candidate  exists,”  it  continued ; 
“  God  has  prepared  him  for  France  through  suffering  and  exile.  He 
is  called  Louis  Napoleon  Bonaparte.”  “Louis  Napoleon  a  thinker!” 
exclaims  the  Ere  Nouvelle ;  and  it  proceeds  to  define  the  only  sense  in 
which  it  can  conceive  of  such  a  thing.  “One  day  Louis  Bonaparte 
was  walking  in  the  court  of  the  castle  of  Ham,  where  he  had  been  for 
three  quarters  of  an  hour.  M.  de  Montholon,  who  had  been  waiting 
to  speak  to  him,  decided  at  last  to  interrupt  him..  But  when  hat  in 
hand  he  stopped  respectfully  three  steps  from  the  prince,  the  latter 
turned  and  said  to  him :  ‘  Keep  still :  do  you  not  see  that  I  am 
thinking.’  ” 

3  Ere  Nouvelle,  Dec.  4,  1848. 

4  Ibid.,  Dec.  8. 

5  Ibid. 

6 “No  bishop  has  directed  the  Catholics  of  his  diocese  to  vote  for 
such  or  such  a  candidate.  On  the  contrary,  all  the  bishops  have  im¬ 
plicitly  recognized,  and  several  have  expressly  stated,  that  they  had  no 
injunction  to  give  on  this  score,  and  that  the  priests  and  the  faithful 
were  free  to  vote  according  to  their  convictions  and  their  conscience.” 
Ere  Nouvelle,  Nov.  28,  1848.  The  Ami  de  la  religion,  referring  to  the 
presidential  election,  asserted  that  the  Church  “  had  no  particular  flag 
to  hoist.”  The  issue  was  not  clear-cut  for  the  Catholics,  as  it  was  in 
the  elections  of  April  23,  1848,  and  May  13,  1849.  Ami  de  la  religion, 
April  19,  1849. 


THE  ELECTION  OF  LOUIS  NAPOLEON 


187] 


priests  were  enthusiastic  for  the  cause  of  Louis  Napoleon. 
Thus  we  find  the  Recueil  Biographique  du  Clerge  sous  la 
Republique  issuing  [November  29]  a  manifesto  to  the  clergy, 
in  which  it  urged  them  to  support  the  Prince,  alleging  that 
he  bore  a  name  synonymous  with  order  and  conciliation, 
and  that  he  was  the  true  friend  of  the  clergy.  Lacordaire, 
on  the  other  hand,  seeing  in  the  presidency  of  Louis  Napo¬ 
leon  only  the  peristyle  of  the  Empire,  supported  General 
Cavaignac.1  Prominent  Catholic  laymen  were  likewise 
divided,  some,  as  Melun  and  Falloux,  supporting  Cavaignac, 
others  as  Montalembert  and  Louis  Veuillot,  Louis  Napoleon. 

It  is  impossible,  therefore,  to  find  in  any  support  which 
the  Catholics  may  have  given  Louis  Napoleon,  the  reason 
for  his  success.  Besides,  too  many  occupied  a  position  of 
neutrality  to  give  them  the  solidarity  of  a  party.  That 
Catholicism  did  not  play  any  very  important,  much  less  a 
decisive,  part  in  the  presidential  campaign  is  further  shown 
by  a  consideration  of  the  factors  which  were  working  to¬ 
wards  the  election  of  the  Prince- President.2 

Scarcely  had  the  Republic  been  proclaimed  before  the 
Bonapartist  intrigue  began  that  was  to  end  in  the  Second 
Empire.  The  chief  agents  of  this  intrigue  were  Aristide 
Ferrere  and  Persigny,  who  on  the  12th  of  March,  1848, 
met  and  discussed  plans  for  the  restoration  of  the  House 
of  Bonaparte  to  power  in  France.  From  that  date  their 
insidious  propaganda  was  carried  on  by  a  few  trustworthy 
followers,  who  sought  to  make  use  of  the  discontent  amongst 
the  middle  classes,  which  was  due  to  financial  depression, 
for  the  purpose  of  undermining  the  Republic  and  paving 
the  way  to  power  for  Louis  Napoleon.  They  sought  to 


1  Foisset,  op.  cit.,  vol.  ii,  p.  196. 

2  For  the  contrary  view,  cf.  Weill,  Le  Catholicisme  liberal  (Paris, 
1909),  p.  99;  who  does  not,  however,  seem  to  take  all  the  facts  into 
consideration. 


jgg  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [i$g 

create  partizans  of  the  Prince  in  all  classes  of  society;  to 
awaken  the  dormant  Bonapartist  sentiment  throughout  the 
country  districts  as  well  as  amongst  the  workmen;  and  to 
remove  all  prejudices  against  the  name  of  Napoleon.1  It 
is  this  propaganda  that  helps  to  explain  the  elections  of 
Louis  Napoleon  to  the  National  Constituent  in  June  and 
again  in  September  1848,  as  well  as  to  the  presidency  on 
the  10th  of  December.  In  order  that  Louis  Napoleon 
might  not  compromise  himself  or  their  work,  they  kept  him 
entirely  in  the  background,  speaking  and  making  promises 
in  hiis  name.2  'Amongst  the  discontented  of  all  classes, 
and  especially  amongst  those  whose  business  the  political 
upheaval  had  either  ruined  or  threatened,  Ferrere  sowed  his 
seed.  In  contrast  with  the  instability  and  the  insecurity  of  the 
republican  regime,  the  Bonapartist  agents  exalted  the  name 
of  Napoleon  as  standing  for  the  very  things  which  the  Re¬ 
public  lacked,  stability,  security,  prosperity.3  Sometimes, 
indeed,  they  met  with  deaf  ears,4  but  more  often  they  f  ound 
ready  listeners.  Papers  sprang  into  existence,  such  as  the 
Napoleon  Republicain,  which  depicted  the  Napoleonic  prin¬ 
ciples  as  those  of  “  pure  democracy  ”,  which  alone  would  be 
able  to  save  France  from  anarchy  on  the  one  hand  and  from 
reaction  on  the  other.5 

Louis  Napoleon’s  position  is  exceptional,  and  what  is  more, 
favorable  [wrote  Ferrere  in  his  circular  of  the  17th  of  Nov¬ 
ember,  1848].  A  stranger  to  all  parties  he  is  able  to  com 
ciliate  them  all,  for  he  will  not  have  to  appease  the  hatred  of 
some  or  satisfy  the  ambitions  of  others.  He  will  not  remain 

1  Ferrere,  op.  cit.,  pp.  69-70. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  71. 

3  Ibid.,  pp.  195  et  seq. 

4  Ibid.,  p.  98. 

5  Napoleon  republicain,  16  June,  1848;  Odilon  Barrot,  Memoires ,  vol. 
iii,  pp.  18-19. 


THE  ELECTION  OF  LOUIS  NAPOLEON 


189] 


in  the  narrow  circle  of  the  coteries  of  Paris ;  for  his  inten¬ 
tions  are  to  choose,  from  the  general  councils  of  the  depart¬ 
ment  and  arrondissement,  the  men  of  ability  and  intelligence 
who  are  found  there  in  great  numbers,  and  to  call  to'  his  side 
all  who  possess  capacity  irrespective  of  their  past.  ...  It  is 
therefore  in  the  general  interest  to  select  from  the  family  of 
Napoleon,  which  the  sovereignty  of  the  people  has  raised  to 
power,  this  principle  of  stability,  which  the  Bourbons  have 
not  been  able  to  give,  and  which  the  Republic  does  not  offer. 
It  is  thus  to  the  nephew  of  the  Emperor  that  belongs  the  good 
fortune  to  conciliate  the  factions,  extinguish  civil  discord,  re¬ 
store  trade,  and  conduct  France  towards  a  future  of  glory 
and  prosperity.1 


Another  factor  making  for  the  success  of  Louis  Napoleon 
on  the  10th  of  December  was  the  support  given  him  by  the 
Club  of  the  Rue  de  Poitiers ,  which  was  virtually  ruled  over 
by  Adolf  Thiers.  When  it  came  to  a  question  of  which 
candidate  this  club  should  support,  it  was  decided,  after 
some  discussion  and  little  opposition,  to  adopt  Louis  Napo¬ 
leon  at  its  official  candidate.2  Deputations  frequently  came 
up  from  the  different  departments  to  consult  Mole  and 
Thiers,  the  leaders  of  the  club,  and  to  ask  their  advice  as 
to  which  candidate  to  support.  This  was  “  uniformly  given 
in  favor  of  Louis  Bonaparte.”  3  If  we  can  believe  de  Toc- 
queville,  “  almost  all  the  leading  members  of  the  Constituent 
Assembly  ”  voted  for  him. 

Many  were  enthusiastic  in  his  cause.  They  gave  to  it  the 
solidarity  of  a  party.  Two  ideas  governed  them,  and  it  is 
difficult  to  say  which  was  the  more  absurd.  One,  that  he  was 
“  nul  ” — that  he  had  neither  talent  nor  knowledge,  and  that 
therefore  he  could  be  easily  led ;  the  other,  that  if  he  were  un- 

1  Ferrere,  op.  cit .,  pp.  195-198. 

2  Senior,  Conversations  with  Thiers,  p.  32. 

3  F.  O.  Normanby  to  Palmerston,  Nov.  16,  1848.  Normanby,  A  Year 
of  Revolution,  vol.  ii,  p.  298. 


igo  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [190 

manageable,  he  could  be  easily  got  rid  of,  at  least  at  the  end 
of  his  term,  perhaps  before.  They  thought  that  he  would  be 
a  tool,  and  a  tool  that  they  could  break.1 

The  decisive  factor,  however,  in  the  election  of  Louis 
Napoleon  was  doubtless  what  the  Revue  des  deux  mondes 
termed  the  aveugle  prestige  d’un  souvenir  2  taken  in  con¬ 
junction  with  the  Bonapartist  propaganda.  Louis  Napo¬ 
leon  had  been  discreetly  kept  in  the  background  so  that  he 
was  uncompromised  and  little  known.  The  magic  of  the 
name  that  he  bore  was  his  strongest  asset.  Any  support 
that  the  Church  and  the  bourgeoisie  gave  him  doubtless  in¬ 
creased  his  majority;  but  they  were  not  the  important  fac¬ 
tors.  3  “  His  candidature  took  like  a  train  of  gunpowder  ”, 

said  Melun.4 

History  affords  no  parallel  [wrote  Lord  Normanby]  to  this 
spectacle  of  all  the  eminent  men  of  all  former  political  par¬ 
ties  uniting  in  support  of  a  man  whom  no  one  of  them  would 
have  personally  selected.  They  in  fact  follow,  whilst  they 
attempt  to  direct  a  popular  impulse  which  they  could  not  re¬ 
sist.  The  memory  of  the  Emperor  Napoleon  is  no  doubt 
for  something  in  this  impulse,  but  the  hatred  of  the  Republic 
gives  another  signification  to  the  name  of  Bonaparte,  and  the 
traditional  recollection  that  it  was  by  such  means  the  last  re¬ 
public  was  destroyed,  gives  peculiar  force  to  this  mode  of  pro¬ 
testation.5 

1  Senior,  Conversations  with  de  Tocqueville,  vol.  i,  p.  195. 

2  “Louis  Napoleon,’'  said  de  Tocqueville,  “had  the  merit,  or  luck, 
to  discover  what  few  suspected,  the  latent  Bonapartism  of  the  Nation. 
The  10th  of  December  showed  that  the  memory  of  the  Emperor,  vague 
and  indefinite,  but  therefore  more  imposing,  still  dwelt  like  an  heroic 
legend  in  the  imagination  of  the  peasantry.”  Senior,  Conversations 
with  de  Tocqueville,  vol.  ii,  p.  11.  Revue  des  deux  mondes,  vol.  24,  1848. 

3  Odilon  Barrot,  op.  cit.,  vol.  iii,  p.  26;  cf.  Ollivier,  VEmpire  liberal. 

4  Memoires,  vol.  ii,  p.  34. 

6  F.  O.  Normanby  to  Palmerston,  December  12,  1848.  A  Year  of 
Revolution,  vol.  ii,  p.  361. 


THE  ELECTION  OF  LOUIS  NAPOLEON 


I9I] 


191; 


But  if  Louis  Napoleon  failed  to  rally  Catholic  support 
whole-heartedly  to  his  candidature,  he  sought  to  capture  its 
cooperation  for  his  rule.  It  was  one  of  the  wings  of  /the 
party  of  order  on  which  he  desired  to  base  his  power.  This 
is  shown  by  the  fact  that  Falloux,  who  according  to  de 
Tocqueville  “  represented  only  the  Church,”  1  was  invited 
to  assume  the  portfolio  of  Worship  and  Education.  In 
the  early  part  of  December  1848,  after  it  had  become  prac¬ 
tically  certain  that  Louis  Napoleon  would  be  elected  Presi¬ 
dent,  Falloux  was  approached  by  Odilon  Barrot  on  behalf 
of  Louis  Napoleon  and  urged  to  accept  this  position  in  the 
new  ministry.  But  he  positively  refused.2  At  the  As¬ 
sembly  Falloux  went  to  Louis  Napoleon  and  thanked  him 
for  the  honor  which  he  had  done  him  in  inviting  him  to 
accept  such  a  post,  but  excused  himself  on  the  ground  of  his 
health.  The  Prince  then  pressed  him  to  accept  one,  if  he 
felt  unable  to  assume  the  responsibility  of  both,  portfolios. 
But  Falloux  replied  that  he  was  as  incapable  of  filling  one 
as  he  was  of  filling  both.  The  conversation  ended  by  Louis 
Napoleon  expressing  the  hope  that  this  was  not  his  “  last 
word.”  Then,  lest  his  Catholic  friends  should  endeavor  to 


1  De  Tocqueville,  Souvenirs  (Paris,  1893),  p.  309.  “Falloux,  who 
was  legitimist  by  birth,  education,  by  preference,  and  by  reason  of  the 
society  in  which  he  moved,  .  .  .  belonged  at  heart  only  to  the  Church. 
He  did  not  believe  in  the  triumph  of  legitimacy  which  he  served,  and 
he  sought,  by  means  of  our  revolutions,  only  a  road  to  restore  the 
Catholic  religion  to-  power.  If  he  remained  in  the  ministry,  it  was  to 
watch  over  her  affairs,  and,  as  he  said  to  me  from  the  outset  with  all 
candor,  because  of  the  advice  of  his  confessor.  I  am  convinced  that, 
from  the  beginning,  Falloux  had  foreseen  the  advantage  that  could  be 
obtained  from,  Louis  Napoleon  for  the  accomplishment  of  this  design, 
and  that  early  familiarizing  himself  with  the  idea  of  seeing  the  president 
become  the  heir  of  the  Republic  and  the  master  of  France,  he  had 
thought  only  of  utilizing  this  inevitable  event  in  the  interest  of  the 
clergy.  He  had  offered  the  support  of  his  party  without,  however, 
giving  himself,”  pp.  353-354* 

2  Falloux,  VEveque  dJ Orleans  (Paris,  1879),  pp.  3  et  seq. 


IQ2  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [192 

persuade  him  to  reverse  his  decision,  Falloux  left  the  As¬ 
sembly  purposing  to  absent  himself  from  its  sessions  until 
the  ministerial  slate  was  made  up.  But  he  was  reckoning 
without  his  friends. 

The  “  first  onslaught  ”  that  was  directed  against  the  de¬ 
cision  of  Falloux  was  made  by  Montalembert  and  Ravignan. 
For  three  hours  the  former  employed  his  eloquence  and  the 
latter  his  entreaties  in  order  to  persuade  him  to  accept  the 
proffered  post.1  But  Falloux  was  obdurate.  He  was  sus¬ 
picious  of  Louis  Napoleon,  and  he  feared  to  compromise 
the  interests  of  religion  by  making  such  an  alliance  as  his 
acceptance  would  entail. 

It  is  not  a  monarchical  scruple  that  holds  me  back  [he  af¬ 
firmed],  for  the  monarchy  is  not  at  issue  at  this  present! 
moment  ....  it  it  only  a  question  of  religion,  which  is  never 
separate  from  the  public  interest.  If  I  should  hope  to  serve 
it,  I  would  not  hesitate  to  sacrifice  all  my  reluctance.  But  the 
Bonapartist  traditions,  the  training  of  Prince  Louis,  his  pre¬ 
vious  conduct  in  Italy,  do  they  authorize  this  hope?  2 

He  finally  convinced  his  friends  that  his  position  was  the 
logical  one,  and  that  it  would  be  a  great  mistake  for  him 
to  accept  the  ministry.3  He  was  not,  however,  to  be  left 
with  this  decision. 

The  next  attack  against  Falloux’s  resolution  was  made 
by  the  Abbe  Dupanloup,  who  through  his  journal,  the  Ami 
de  la  Religion ,  was  playing  an  important  role  in  the  politics 
of  the  Church.  He  relates  that  after  saying  Mass  on  Tues¬ 
day  morning,  the  12th  of  December — the  election  had  been 
on  the  10th — he  was  beginning  his  thanksgiving  when  he 
was  seized  by  so  “  irresistible  an  impulse  ”  that  he  was 

1Lecanuet,  Montalembert,  vol.  iii,  p.  421. 

2  Falloux,  op.  cit. 

8 Lagrange,  Vie  de  monscigneur  Dupanloup  (Paris,  1883),  vol.  i,  p.  469. 


THE  ELECTION  OF  LOUIS  NAPOLEON 


193 


193] 

unable  to  continue.  It  was  flying  in  the  face  of  Providence 
to  allow  Falloux  to  follow  the  bent  of  his  own  will. 
Dupanloup  therefore  set  out  immediately  to  change  that  will. 
“  That  was  nine  o’clock  in  the  morning,  and  I  persevered  ”, 
he  relates,  “  until  eleven  o’clock  at  night,  returning  only 
when  he  was  minister.”  1 

Then  began  that  somewhat  amusing  game  of  hide-and- 
seek  between  Dupanloup  and  Falloux.  The  latter,  fearing 
that  he  would  not  be  left  in  peace,  swore  hits  valet  to  secrecy 
and  went  to  pass  the  day  in  the  Jardin  des  Plantes  and  in 
the  house  of  his  friend  Madame  Swetchine.  But  the  Abbe 
Dupanloup,  eventually  overcoming  the  valet’s  power  of  re¬ 
sistance,  discovered  the  whereabouts  of  his  friend  and  lost 
no  time  in  beginning  his  attack.2 

Your  refusal  [he  began]  has  been  laid  before  Prince  Louis, 
who  replied  coldly,  “  I  understand  what  this  means.  At  M. 
de  Falloux’s  age  a  man  does  not  willingly  refuse  a  ministry. 
His  party  will  not  allow  him  to  accept.  This  is  a  declaration 
of  war.  I  wished  to  lean  upon  the  conservatives ;  since  this 
support  is  withheld,  I  must  seek  one  elsewhere.  To-day  the 
Legitimist  party  raises  its  head;  to-morow  the  Orleanists  will 
do  the  same.  I  cannot  remain  thus  in  mid-air,  and  must  ask 
the  left  for  the  assistance  which  is  refused  by  the  right.  This 
evening  I  will  see  M.  Jules  Favre.”  So  you  see,  my  friend 
[said  the  Abbe  Dupanloup]  this  is  the  situation  created  by 
your  obstinacy.  You  will  abandon  Italy  to  its  convulsions, 
leave  the  Pope  helpless  at  the  mercy  of  his  worst  enemies, 
and  cover  the  most  eminent  members  of  the  conservative 
party  with  confusion  before  her.3 

» 

This  was  too  much  for  Falloux’s  powers  of  resistance,  so 

1  Lagrange,  op.  cit.,  p.  470. 

2  Falloux,  op.  cit.,  pp.  13  et  seq. 

*  Falloux,  Memoirs  of  a  royalist,  Eng.  trans.,  pp.  328-329. 


I94  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [194 

he  promised  to  submit  provided  he  could  obtain  the  support 
and  cooperation  of  Thiers.1  The  party  therefore  went  im¬ 
mediately  to  the  residence  of  the  latter.  When  Thiers  was 
told  that  Falloux  had  at  last  consented  to  accept  the  position 
in  the  ministry,  he  began  to  congratulate  him.  But  the 
latter  protested : 

“  Do  not  thank  me  yet  ”,  I  said,  “  I  am  come  to  you  because 
the  priests  send  me.”  I  purposely  used  this  expression  in 
order  to  place  my  interlocutor  at  once  face  to  face  with  the 
difficulty.  “  I  will  accept  office  if  you  will  promise  me  to  pre¬ 
pare  a  bill  for  educational  liberty  and  to  support  it.  If  not — 
no !  ”  “I  promise,  I  promise,”  effusively  replied  M.  Thiers, 
“  and  you  may  rest  assured  that  I  feel  no  difficulty  in  giving 
you  this  pledge.  You  can  rely  on  me,  for  my  convictions 
are  the  same  as  your  own.  We  have  made  a  mistake  on  the 
religious  question,  both  my  liberal  friends  and  myself,  and 
we  may  as  well  admit  it  freely.  I  had  better  go  at  once  andl 
see  Prince  Louis,  who  is  even  now  listening  to  detestable 
counsels ;  for  perhaps  in  a  few  hours  it  will  be  too  late  to 
win  him  away  from  these  sinister  influences.”  2 

It  therefore  seems  evident  that  the  Catholic  leaders,  not¬ 
ably  Montalembert  and  the  Abbe  Dupanloup,  in  persuading 
Falloux  to  accept  the  proffered  portfolio  in  the  new  ministry, 
hoped  to  accomplish  two  things,  French  intervention  on 
behalf  of  the  Pope  and  a  law  that  would  assure  them  the 
educational  rights  which  they  had  so  long  demanded.  In¬ 
deed  Falloux  stated  in  his  memoirs  that  such  was  his  con¬ 
ception  of  his  task.  “  I  desired  nothing  better  ”,  he 
declared,  “  than  to  justify  myself  in  my  own  eyes  by 
undertaking,  without  losing  an  hour,  my  double  task  of 

1  Senior’s  description  of  de  Falloux :  “A  man  of  high  talents  and 
acquirements  and  virtues,  who,  much  against  his  will,  took  office,  be¬ 
cause  his  confessor  told  him  that  it  was  his  duty.”  Correspondence 
with  de  Tocqueville,  vol.  i,  p.  107. 

2  Falloux,  op.  cit.,  pp.  330-331. 


THE  ELECTION  OF  LOUIS  NAPOLEON 


195 


195] 

assuring  religious  liberty  in  France  and  the  Pope’s  safety 
in  Italy.”  1  Louis  Napoleon’s  desire  to  have  Falloux  in  his 
ministry  was  taken  as  a  gage  that  he  intended  to  perform 
at  least  his  pledge  regarding  liberty  of  instruction.2  As 
to  the  relief  of  the  Pope  several  others  in  the  ministry  seem 
to  have  desired  such  a  step,  while  only  one  was  openly 
hostile.  1 

1 

M.  Barrot  ....  entered  frankly  into  the  feeling  of  admira¬ 
tion  for  Pius  IX,  and  freely  expressed  his  respect  for  the 
Catholic  creed.  But  with  him  it  was  natural  instinct  and 
good  will,  not  religious  convictions.  Drouyn  de  Lhuys  and 
M.  Leon  Faucher  regarded  the  Pope  as  the  keystone  of  the 
European  edifice,  and  they  desired  to  retain  his  throne  like  that 
of  any  other  sovereign.  M.  Drouyn  de  Lhuys  often  said,  “  I 
prefer  a  good  Pope  to  a  bad  one,  but  I  prefer  a  bad  Pope  to 
none  at  all!”  M.  Faucher  applauded  this  sentiment.  By 
a  good  Pope  they  meant  a  sovereign  pontiff  such  as  Pius  IX 
had  shown  himself  from  1846  to  1848.  By  a  bad  Pope  they 
meant  the  indignant,  discouraged,  ruler  surrounded  by  abso¬ 
lutist  influences  which  were  endeavoring  to  gain  empire  over 
him.3 

! 

_  I 

The  President’s  attitude,  however,  seems  not  to  have  been 
so  enthusiastic  in  the  papal  cause  as  his  letter  to  the  papal 
nuncio  on  the  eve  of  his  election  would  have  us  believe.  He 
was  torn  between  the  conflicting  desires  to  gain  the  support 
of  the  Catholics  in  France  and  his  sympathy  with  the 
aspirations  of  Italian  nationalism.  On  one  occasion  he 
seems  to  have  been  inclined  to  intervene  in  behalf  of  the 
Roman  revolutionaries.4  But  ultimately  his  desire  to  stand 

falloux,  op.  cit.,  p.  342. 

2  Melun,  Memoir es,  vol.  ii,  p.  60. 

3  Falloux,  op.  cit.,  p.  368. 

4  Senior,  Conversations  and  correspondence  with  A.  de  Tocqueville> 
vol.  ii,  p.  10;  cf.  Falloux,  op.  cit.,  vol.  i,  p.  367. 


ig6  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [^6 

well  with  rthe  Catholics  got  the  better  of  whatever  sympathy 
he  may  have  had  with  the  revolutionary  party,  and  although 
his  action  in  the  Roman  question  was  probably  not  prompted 
by  single-minded  motives,  nevertheless  he  was  to  receive 
the  credit  of  fulfilling  the  will  of  the  Catholics.1 

1  Cf.  infra ,  chap.  viii. 


CHAPTER  VI 


The  Expedition  to  Rome  in  1849 

I.  ROME  AND  EUROPEAN  DIPLOMACY  IN  THE  EARLY 

PART  OF  1849 

Pius  IX  an  exile  at  Gaeta  introduced  a  new  difficulty  into 
an  already  complex  Italian  situation.  The  diplomatic  body 
were  requested  to  follow  him  to  his  new  court,  which  at 
once  became  the  center  of  European  interest  and  intrigue. 
On  the  evening  of  the  25th  of  November  the  Bavarian 
minister  at  the  Papal  Court  arrived  in  Naples  with  an 
autograph  letter  from  the  Pope,  announcing  his  arrival  at 
Gaeta.1  Two  days  later  the  King  of  Naples,  accompanied 
by  the  Royal  Family,  the  Apostolic  Nuncio  and  a  large  body 
of  clergy  sailed  from  Naples  to  visit  the  Pope.2  The  pres¬ 
ence  of  the  Bourbon  monarch  at  -the  Papal  Court  did  not 
foster  the  liberal  tendencies  of  the  Papacy. 

At  first  it  appeared  possible  to  effect  a  reconciliation  be¬ 
tween  the  Pope  and  his  subjects.3  But  such  a  possibility 
seems  to  have  been  excluded  from  the  counsels  at  Gaeta.  A 
deputation,  which  was  sent  from  the  Romans,  was  refused 
admittance  into  the  Neapolitan  States  at  Terracina.4  Sir 
William  Temple  in  a  letter  to  Lord  Palmerston  stated  that 

1  British  parliamentary  papers:  correspondence  respecting  the  affairs 
of  Rome,  vol.  lviii,  Napier  to  Palmerston,  Naples,  November  26,  1848. 

2  Ibid.,  Abercromby  to  Palmerston,  Turin,  (Dec.  1,  ,1848. 

3  Ibid.,  Cooper  Key  to  Sir  Wm.  Parker,  Rome,  Jan.  3,  1849. 

4Farini,  The  Roman  State,  vol.  iii,  p.  41. 

197] 


197 


I98  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [198 

it  was  to  be  feared  that  the  counsels  of  those  who  were  ad¬ 
verse  to  the  Pope’s  going  to  Rome  except  by  means  of  armed 
intervention  would  prevent  any  active  measures  being  taken 
towards  a  reconciliation  between  his  Holiness  and  his  sub¬ 
jects.1  This  was  confirmed  by  the  fact  that  Pius  IX  sent 
a  letter  ito  the  young  Emperor  Francis  Joseph,  on  the  oc¬ 
casion  of  his  accession,  addressing  him  as  his  tres  cher 
H Is  ” ,  and  requesting  his  assistance  against  the  rebellious 
subjects  of  the  Papacy.2  Nor  was  the  Papal  court  more 
ready  to  accept  a  restoration  at  the  hands  of  Piedmont. 
The  King  of  Piedmont  despatched  Count  Enrico  Martini 
as  ambassador  to  the  Pope,  but  the  latter  at  first  refused  to 
receive  him,  alleging  that  the  formality  of  asking  the  ac¬ 
ceptance  of  an  ambassador  had  not  been  observed,  and  that 
the  Government  of  Charles  Albert  was  in  communication 
with  the  “  rebels  ”  at  Rome.  Finally,  however,  the  Pope 
consented  to  receive  Count  Martini  as  a  private  visitor. 
During  the  course  of  the  interview  that  followed,  when  the 
conversation  had  turned  upon  the  best  mode  of  restoring 
the  temporal  authority  of  the  Pope,  the  envoy  of  Piedmont 
referred  to  the  schemes  of  the  constitutionalists,  and  urged 
the  necessity  of  an  accommodation.  He  impressed  upon  the 
Pope,  should  the  attempt  at  reconciliation  fail,  the  advant¬ 
age  of  calling  in  only  Italian,  and  the  certain  mischief  and 
peril  of  accepting  foreign,  aid.  The  reply  of  Pius  IX  was 
to  the  effect  that  he  had  little  or  no  confidence  in  the  Italian 
governments.  He  was  suspicious  of  the  moderates,  and 
looked  for  foreign  intervention.  The  Church  was  not 
national,  he  maintained,  but  universal;  and  the  Pontiff  was 
more  her  head  than  he  was  the  father  of  his  own  subjects. 
He  intimated  that  an  Austrian  intervention  was  likely,  and 

1  British  parliamentary  papers,  op.  cit.,  Ponsonby  to  Palmerston, 
Vienna,  December  24,  1848. 

2  Naples,  January  5,  1849. 


THE  EXPEDITION  TO  ROME  IN  1849 


199 


199] 

on  Martini  appearing  a  good  deal  moved  and  perturbed  at 
this,  he  added:  “What  would  you  have?  They  have 
brought  it  upon  themselves.”  1  Martini  offered  the  Pope 
a  Piedmontese  corps  for  the  defense  of  the  Romagna;  but 
Cardinal  Antonelli  rejected  such  aid,  alleging  that  “  the 
Holy  Father  could  not,  under  the  idea  of  promoting  the 
national  cause  of  Italy,  compromise  the  true  interests  of  the 
Holy  Church.”  2 

At  the  same  time  the  Bavarian  ambassador,  Count  Spaur, 
and  the  court  of  Naples  were  working  for  an  Austrian,  or 
a  combined  Austrian  and  Neapolitan,  restoration  of  the  Pope. 
On  the  very  day  3  of  Martini’s  interview  with  Pius  IX 
Count  Spaur  informed  Count  von  Liedekerke,  the  minister 
of  Holland,  that  an  Austrian  ambassador  would  shortly 
reach  Gaeta  and  that  within  a  fortnight  the  “  Roman  nuis¬ 
ance  ”  would  be  at  an  end.'4  Spain  also  seemed  disposed  to 
intervene,  and  despatched  a  squadron  to  Italian  waters, 
giving  as  an  excuse  that  she  desired  to  protect  the  personal 
safety  of  the  Pope.5 

When  France  got  an  inkling  of  the  designs  of  Austria 
and  Naples,  the  government  immediately  despatched  Latour 
d’ Auvergne  to  Gaeta,  instructing  him,  in  conjunction  with 
the  Duke  d’Harcourt,  the  French  Ambassador,  to  expostu¬ 
late  with  the  Papal  court.  They  requested  the  Pope  to  be 
good  enough  to  assure  them  that  he  had  neither  asked  nor 
anticipated  aid  from  Vienna  earlier  than  from  Paris.  They 
pointed  out  that  Austrian  intervention,  if  it  were  intended, 
must  be  for  the  advantage  of  Austria,  rather  than  for  the 

iFarini,  op.  cit.,  vol.  iii,  pp.  194-195. 

2  Ibid.,  pp.  199  et  scq. 

3  January  12,  1849. 

4  Farini,  op.  cit.,  vol.  iii,  pp.  195-196. 

5  British  parliamentary  papers ,  op.  cit.,  Gioberti  to  Bertran  de  Lis, 
Turin,  January  15,  1849. 


200  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [ 200 

advantage  of  the  Holy  See.  Finally  they  asserted  that  if 
Austria  stirred,  France  also  would  send  a  force  to  the 
Roman  States  and  would  garrison  some  point  of  impor¬ 
tance.1  Neither  the  Pope  nor  Cardinal  Antonelli  gave  any 
distinct  answer  to  the  representations  of  the  French  delega¬ 
tion;  but  it  seems  probable  that  the  remonstrance  of  France 
foiled,  to  some  degree  at  least,  the  immediate  schemes  of 
Austria  and  Naples.2 

While  intrigues  were  going  on  at  Gaeta  for  an  Austrian 
and  Neapolitan  restoration  of  the  Pope,  a  proposal  came 
from  another  source.  On  the  21st  of  December,  1848, 
Spain  communicated  to  Piedmont  the  suggestion  that  each  of 
the  Catholic  powers  should  name  a  representative,  and  that 
such  plenipotentiaries  should  meet  at  some  convenient  place 
in  order  to  agree  on  ways  and  means  to  effect  the  restora¬ 
tion  of  Pius  IX.  To  avoid  delay  the  government  of  Spain 
proposed  Madrid  or  some  Spanish  town  on  the  shores  of 
the  Mediterranean  as  the  seat  of  the  conference.  “  As  the 
matter  in  question  is  essentially  Catholic,”  it  was  urged, 
“  Spain  cannot  seem  a  place  ill-suited  for  such  conferences.” 
In  order  not  to  awaken  the  susceptibilities  of  the  Italians, 
Spain  was  careful  to  say  that  this  conference  should  con¬ 
cern  itself  solely  and  exclusively  with  the  question  of  secur¬ 
ing  the  freedom  and  independence  of  the  Pope,  without 
dealing  with  questions  of  another  character.3  This  pro- 

1  Cf.  British  parliamentary  papers,  op.  cit.,  Normanby  to  Palmerston, 
January  15,  1849.  “  Some  excitement  has  been  prevalent  in  Paris 
during  the  last  few  days  in  consequence  of  the  military  and  naval 
preparations  making  in  the  southern  seaports.  I  had  some  conversation 
with  M.  Drouyn  de  Lhuys  on  the  subject,  who  explained  that  these 
steps  were  only  taken  in  order  to  be  in  a  certain  stage  of  readiness,  in 
case  Austria  should  leave  the  French  Government  no  alternative  than 
either  a  joint  interference  in  the  affairs  of  the  Roman  States,  or  the 
independent  intervention  of  her  army  in  the  north  of  Italy.” 

2  Farini,  op.  cit.,  vol.  iii,  p.  201. 

3  British  parliamentary  papers ,  vol.  lviii,  M.  Pidal  to  M.  Bertran  de 
Lis,  Madrid,  December  2,1,  1848. 


THE  EXPEDITION  TO  ROME  IN  1849 


201 


20l] 

posal  of  Spain  was  sent  to  the  other  courts ;  but  it  met  with 
too  much  opposition  to  be  carried  into  effect  immediately. 
Drouyn  de  Lhuys,  the  French  Minister  of  Foreign  Af¬ 
fairs,  probably  knowing  the  feeling  of  Piedmont,  replied 
that  he  considered  the  independence  of  the  Pope  not  only  a 
Catholic  question,  but  also  a  European  one.1 

The  strongest  opposition  to  the  project  of  Spain,  how¬ 
ever,  came  from  Piedmont,  who  gave  the  foreign  powers  to 
understand  that  she  would  not  tolerate  their  intervention  in 
Italy  on  behalf  of  the  Pope.  Spain  had  contended  that  as 
the  authority  of  the  Pope  was  a  matter  of  concern  to  all 
Catholic  powers,  they  had  the  right  to  intervene  to  safeguard 
that  authority.  This  contention  Gioberti,  now  Prime  Min¬ 
ister  of  Piedmont,  flatly  denied.  If  the  position  of  Spain 
were  valid,  he  argued,  it  would  mean  that  the  Roman  States 
did  not  geographically  belong  to  Italy.  Admitting  that  as 
a  spiritual  lord  the  Pope  was  under  the  protection  of  all 
the  powers,  he  maintained  that  as  a  temporal  prince  he 
could  be  placed  under  that  same  protection  only  in  so  far 
as  might  be  consistent  with  Italian  nationality  and  independ¬ 
ence.  This  principle  of  Italian  nationality  and  independ¬ 
ence,  continued  Gioberti, 

is  not  less  sacred  than  the  temporal  rights  of  the  Pope:  it  is 
necessary  therefore  to  endeavor  to  reconcile  the  two.  Now 
as  it  is  repugnant  to  Italian  nationality  and  independence,  that 
foreign  powers  should  interfere  in  the  political  affairs  of  the 
Peninsula  by  force  of  arms,  it  follows  that  the  Pope  as  a  tem¬ 
poral  prince  can  only  be  placed  under  the  protection  of  the 
Italian  powers.  These  powers  being  eminently  Catholic, 
and  some  of  them  having  all  the  means  requisite  for  main¬ 
taining  the  legitimate  rights  of  the  Pontiff,  the  strong  protec" 
tion  which  his  rights  demand  is  in  this  way  reconciled  with  the 
principle  of  our  nationality  and  of  our  independence.  Such 

1  British  parliamentary  papers,  vol.  lviii,  Normanby  to  Palmerston, 
Paris,  January  8,  1849. 


202  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [202 

is  the  only  manner  in  which  the  two  principles  at  stake  can 
be  reconciled.  If,  for  the  protection  appertaining  to  the 
Italian  States,  that  of  all  Catholic  states  is  substituted,  our 
nationality  is  at  an  end,  and  Italy  becomes  to  a  certain  extent 
subject  to  the  whole  world,  and  the  Pontificate,  which  is  the 
glory  of  our  Peninsula,  becomes  a  burden  to  it,  and,  so  to 
speak,  a  badge  of  servitude.1 

By  the  end  of  January  the  negotiations  for  the  restora¬ 
tion  of  Pius  IX  had  thus  reached  a  deadlock.  France  sup¬ 
porting  the  views  of  Piedmont 2  refused  to  unite  with  Aus¬ 
tria  for  a  combined  Austrian  and  French  intervention,  or 
to  allow  Austria  alone  or  Austria  and  Naples  to  intervene, 
as  the  Papal  court  wished.  On  the  other  hand  the  court  of 
Gaeta  refused  to  accept  either  the  mediation  or  the  armed 
intervention  of  Piedmont,  who  persisted  in  protesting  against 
any  foreign  interference.  Gioberti  argued  “  that  a  pacific 
and  kindly  interposition  must  be  more  palatable  to*  the  Vicar 
of  Christ  than  the  violent  and  blood-stained  paths  of  war¬ 
fare,  and  that  the  aid  of  an  Italian  sovereign  would  be  pre¬ 
ferred  by  Pius  IX  to  German  succours/’  3  Should  such 
intervention  be  proposed,  he  added,  Piedmont  would  utter 
a  formal  protest  “  before  Italy  and  all  friendly  powers.” 
Moreover,  nothing  but  reverence  for  the  Holy  See  would 
withhold  them  from  regarding  intervention  as  a  casus  belli d 
The  Pope,  it  is  true,  unbent  sufficiently  t0'  recognize  the  of¬ 
ficial  character  of  Count  Martini.  But  if  he  at  times 
showed  himself  inclined  to  mild  counsels,  he  would  after¬ 
wards  unsay  his  words,  or  Cardinal  Antonelli  would  wrest 

1  British  parliamentary  papers,  vol.  lviii,  Gioberti  to  M.  Bertran  de 
Lis,  Turin,  January  15,  1&49. 

2  Bianchi,  op.  cit.,  vol.  vi,  p.  492,  document  xxxv;  Barrot,  op.  cit., 
vol.  iii,  p.  147. 

3  Farini,  op.  cit.,  vol.  iii,  p.  203. 

4  Ibid .,  p.  204. 


THE  EXPEDITION  TO  ROME  IN  1849 


203] 


203 


“  a  doubtful  or  contrary  sense  out  of  them.” 1  The 
Neapolitan  agents  were  continually  fostering  suspicion  of 
the  intentions  of  Piedmont  at  the  court  of  Gaeta,  insinuat¬ 
ing  that  that  power  was  offering  her  mediation  with  the 
secret  intention  of  obtaining  a  great  slice  from  the  States 
of  the  Church.2  The  court  of  Gaeta  continued  to  favor  a 
Papal  restoration  by  means  of  Austrian  arms,3  and  accord¬ 
ingly  despatched  an  envoy,  Monsignor  Bedim,  under  an 
assumed  name  to  France,  in  order  to  devise  arrangements 
with  the  Catholic  party  there  for  foiling  the  opposition  of 
the  French  government  to  their  designs.4 

On  the  4th  of  February,  the  Austrian  Ambassador,  Count 
Maurice  Esterhazy,  arrived  at  Gaeta.  He  immediately  had 
an  interview  with  Cardinal  Antonelli  and  an  audience  with 
the  Pope.  The  upshot  was  that  a  consistory  of  Cardinals 
was  called  for  the  7th  of  February,  at  which  it  was  decided 
to  request  the  armed  assistance  of  Austria,  France,  Spain 
and  Naples.5  The  sentiment  against  Piedmont  prevailed 
to  such  a  degree  that  the  latter  power  was  struck  off  the  list 
of  Catholic  nations  to  which  an  appeal  for  aid  should  be 
made.6  The  proclamation  of  the  Roman  Republic  on  the 
9th  of  February  did  but  confirm  the  decision  of  the  court 
of  Gaeta.  So  that  on  the  fourteenth  Pius  IX  protested  be¬ 
fore  the  diplomatic  body  against  that  proclamation.7  And 
on  the  1 8th  of  February  Cardinal  Antonelli  addressed  his 
note  to  the  four  above-mentioned  Catholic  powers. 


1  Farini,  op.  cit.,  vol.  iii,  p.  208. 

2  Ibid. 

8  British  parliamentary  papers,  vol.  lviii,  Abercromby  to  Palmerston, 
Turin,  January  17,  1849. 

4  Farini,  op.  cit.,  vol.  iii,  p.  207. 

5  Ibid.,  p.  209. 

6  Ibid.,  p.  210. 

7Gaillard,  op.  cit.,  pp.  129-130;  Farini,  op.  cit.,  vol.  iii,  p.  277. 


204  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [204 

.  .  .  .  Inasmuch  as  Austria,  France,  Spain  and  the  Kingdom' 
of  the  Two  Sicilies  by  their  geographical  position  lie  so  that 
they  can  repair  promptly  to  the  dominions  of  the  Holy  See  to 
reestablish  the  public  order  overthrown  by  a  horde  of  sect¬ 
aries:  the  Holy  Father,  accordingly  trusting  in  the  religious 
concern  of  these  powers,  daughters  of  the  Church,  asks  with 
entire  confidence  their  armed  intervention,  mainly  to  liberate 
the  States  of  the  Church  from  that  band  of  wretches,  which 
is  exercising  there,  with  every  kind  of  enormity,  the  most 
atrocious  despotism.1 

This  appeal  of  Cardinal  Antonelli  to  the  Catholic  powers 
had  the  effect  of  strengthening  the  determination  of  Austria, 
impelled  by  her  own  interests  in  Italy  as  well,  to  restore  the 
Papal  government  by  force  of  arms.  But  Austria  was  now* 
loth  to  act  in  Italy  without  knowing  what  the  attitude  of 
France  would  be;  for  they  feared  what  Louis  Napoleon  and 
the  Republican  party  might  do,  a  fear  that  was  fostered  by 
Lord  Ponsonby,  the  English  Ambassador  at  Vienna.2  Ac¬ 
cordingly,  Schwartzenberg,  the  Austrian  Chancellor,  doubt¬ 
less  in  order  to  sound  the  French  cabinet,  proposed  that 
France  should  restore  the  Pope,  declaring  that  the  Austrians 
would  content  themselves  with  moving  some  troops  into 
Bologna,  which  they  would  withdraw  as  soon  as  France 
should  complete  the  work  at  Rome.3  But  France  at  once 
rejected  this  proposal.4 

The  court  of  Gaeta  meanwhile  had  become  impatient  at 
the  delay,  and  had  made  a  direct  appeal  to  Austria  for  “  im¬ 
mediate  armed  intervention/’  Schwartzenberg,  in  a  note 

1Farini,  op.  cit.,  vol.  iii,  pp.  279-280. 

2  Hiibner,  Count  J.  A.  von,  Une  annee  de  ma  vie.  1848-1849  (Paris, 
1891),  pp.  561  et  seq.;  British  parliamentary  papers,  vol.  lviii,  Pon¬ 
sonby  to  Palmerston,  February  15  and  February  20,  1849. 

3  Ibid.,  Ponsonby  to  Palmerston,  Vienna,  March  13,  1849. 

4F.  O.  27,  vol.  842,  Normanby  to  Palmerston,  March  12,  1849. 


THE  EXPEDITION  TO  ROME  IN  1849 


205 


205] 

to  France,  stated  that  this  was  a  demand  that  Austria  could 
not  refuse;  yet  before  acceding  to  it,  he  invited  France  to 
appear  at  Civita-Vecchia  with  any  force  she  might  please 
“  whilst  the  Austrians  moved  upon  Rome  and  restored  the 
Pope,  leaving  his  Holiness  to  give  his  subjects  such  a  gov¬ 
ernment  as  it  might  be  his  pleasure  to  grant.”  1  M.  Drouyn 
de  Lhuys,  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs,  informed  M. 
Thom,  the  Austrian  Ambassador,  “  that  these  were  measures 
with  which  France  not  only  could  have  no  concern,  but 
against  which  she  entered  her  formal  protest;  and  if  they 
were  nevertheless  persisted  in,  she  would  consider  herself 
at  liberty  to  pursue  that  course  which  might  appear  most 
consistent  with  her  national  honor  and  interests.”  2 

The  French  Cabinet  supported  this  position  of  the  Mini¬ 
ster  for  Foreign  Affairs.  The  policy  of  France  was  to  ef¬ 
fect  a  reconciliation  between  the  Provisional  Roman  gov¬ 
ernment  and  the  court  of  Gaeta;  and  to  this  end  M.  Mercier 
was  unofficially  sent  to  Rome  with  the  intelligence  that  the 
Romans  must  not  expect  the  slightest  sympathy  from  the 
French  government,  and  that  their  only  means  of  avoiding 
an  intervention  from  other  powers  was  for  them  to  come 
tfco  terms  with  the  Sovereign  Pontiff.3  Failing  such  an 
arrangement,  the  Papal  restoration  should  be  effected  by 
Italian  arms  alone.4  Both  these  solutions,  however,  were 
rendered  impossible  by  the  refusal  of  the  court  at  Gaeta  to 
accept  any  restoration  other  than  that  brought  about  by 
foreign  intervention. 

1  F.  O.  27,  vol.  842;  cf.  Johnston,  op.  cit.,  p.  256. 

3F.  O.  27,  vol.  842.  Lord  Normanby  to  Lord  Palmerston,  Paris, 
March  12,  1849. 

3  Ibid.,  Lord  Normanby  to  Lord  Palmerston,  Paris,  March  ir,  1849; 
Bianchi,  op.  cit.,  p.  493.  Document  xxxvi:  Schwartzenberg  to  Austrian 
Ambassador  at  Naples. 

4  Farini,  op.  cit.,  vol.  iii,  pp.  295-296. 


206  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [206 

Negotiation  having  failed  to  bring  about  any  agreement, 
it  was  decided  to  act  upon  the  suggestion  of  Spain  and  hold 
a  conference  on  the  affairs  of  Rome.  Each  of  the  four  Cath¬ 
olic  powers  accordingly  named  a  representative  to  meet 
with  those  of  the  other  powers  in  a  conference  which,  it 
was  agreed,  should  open  at  Gaeta  on  the  30th  of  March. 
But  in  the  meantime  Piedmont  suffered  a  crushing  defeat 
at  the  hands  of  Austria  at  Novara  on  the  22nd  of  March. 
This  event  removed  the  possibility  of  the  former  power  of¬ 
fering  any  serious  resistance  to  armed  intervention  in  the 
States  of  the  Church.  On  this  account  the  representatives 
of  Austria  and  Naples,  as  well  as  Cardinal  Antonelli,  were 
much  elated,  and  were  prepared  to  press  the  more  strongly 
for  the  immediate  restoration  of  Pius  IX.  The  conferences 
opened  at  Gaeta  on  the  30th  of  March  under  the  presidency 
of  Cardinal  Antonelli.  D’Harcourt  and  Rayneval  represented 
France;  Esterhazy,  Austria;  Martinez  de  la  Rosa,  Spain;  and 
Ludolf,  Naples.1  The  Due  d’Harcourt  knowing,  through 
the  examination  that  the  French  agent  Mercier  had  re¬ 
cently  made,  that  nothing  less  than  civil  equality  and  poli¬ 
tical  freedom  would  satisfy  the  inhabitants  of  the  Roman 
States,  proposed  liberal  arrangements  and  refused  to  con¬ 
sent  to  Austria  restoring  the  clerical  government  without 
guarantees  for  the  Roman  people.2  Antonelli,  on  the  other 
hand,  who  had  at  first  professed  liberal  views  and  disguised 
his  distrust  of  France,  now  that  his  spirits  had  been  raised 
by  the  Austrian  success,  demanded  an  immediate  interven¬ 
tion  and  restoration  that  should  be  “  fettered  neither  by 
promise  from  the  court,  nor  by  securities  for  the  people.”  3 
The  other  powers  supported  him  in  his  views;  but  d’Har- 
court  alone  opposed,  declaring  that  he  could  not  go  on  with 

Marini,  op.  cit.,  vol.  iii,  p.  350. 

'Ibid.,  p.  351. 

3  Ibid. 


THE  EXPEDITION  TO  ROME  IN  1849 


207 


207] 

the  negotiations  without  further  instructions  from  his  gov¬ 
ernment.1  It  was  this  situation  that  called  f  orth  the  French 
Expedition. 

II.  THE  QUESTION  OF  FRENCH  INTERVENTION  AT  ROME 

While  negotiations  were  being  carried  on  between  the 
various  European  powers  regarding  the  position  of  the 
Pope,  the  French  Catholics  were  pressing  their  government 
to  intervene  and  thus  have  the  honor  of  a  papal  restoration. 
Not  only  was  there  great  dissatisfaction  expressed  at  the 
limited  mission  which  General  Cavaignac  had  undertaken, 
but  the  Catholic  press  continued  to  emphasize  the  rights  of 
the  Papacy  and  the  duties  of  France  as  the  “  Eldest 
daughter  ”  of  the  Church.  During  the  months  of  Decem¬ 
ber,  1848  and  January,  1849  the  Abbe  Dupanloup'  was  pub¬ 
lishing  a  series  o»f  articles  in  the  Ami  de  la  Religion  en¬ 
titled  De  la  S  ouverainete  Temporelle  du  Pape,  in  which  he 
stressed  the  necessity  of  the  papal  sovereignty  for  preserv¬ 
ing  the  independence  of  the  Pope,  for  the  liberty  of  the 
Church  and  for  the  safety  of  Europe.2  Besides,  both  the 
Univers  and  the  Ami  de  la  Religion  showed  in  their  editor¬ 
ials  an  increasing  impatience  with  the  government  for  not 
taking  more  prompt  action. 

We  are  unable  to  conceal  our  astonishment  [declared  the  latter 
periodical]  at  the  slowness  of  the  government  in  coming  to  a 
decision  as  to  French  policy  in  the  affairs  of  Italy.  To  be 
sure,  we  understand  the  inherent  difficulties  of  a  new  situation, 
which  are  still  more  aggravated  by  the  hostile  attitude  and  the 
ill-will  of  the  assembly  ....  but  we  fear  that  the  executive 
does  not  sufficiently  comprehend  what  the  dignity  of  France 
calls  for,  what  the  glorious  traditions  of  her  devotion  towards 

1  Farini,  op.  cit.,  vol.  iii,  p.  350. 

2  These  articles  were  published  in  book  form  (  Paris,  1849)  by  the 
committee  for  the  defense  of  religious  liberty  and  used  for  propaganda 
purposes.  Lagrange,  Dupanloup,  vol.  i,  p.  462. 


208  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [208 

the  Holy  See  and  the  unanimous  wishes  of  thirty  millions  of 
Catholics  demand.1 

The  Univers,  criticizing  the  ISre  Nouvelle  because  it  be¬ 
trayed  sympathy  with  the  Roman  democrats,  declared : 

The  temporal  sovereignty  of  the  Pope  is  not  a  subject  for  con¬ 
troversy;  it  is  not  dependent  on  the  caprice  of  the  factions; 
it  rests  on  ancient  rights  against  which  universal  suffrage  can 
do  nothing  that  will  have  any  weight  in  the  face  of  justice. 
To  summon  a  Constituent  to  discuss  these  rights,  to  deter¬ 
mine  whether  the  temporal  power  of  the  head  of  the  Church 
shall  be  maintained  or  altered,  is  to  suppose  that  these  rights 
are  questionable,  that  this  power  is  subject  to  universal  suf¬ 
frage.  That  would  be  to  call  in  question  the  inalienable  sov¬ 
ereignty  of  this  power,  for  a  dependent  power  is  no  longer 
sovereign.  And  that  is  why  the  Pope  is  unable  to  recognize 
the  Roman  Constituent,  even  if  he  should  be  certain  that  the 
first  act  of  this  assembly  would  be  the  peaceful  reestablishment 
of  his  authority.2 

The  Ami  de  la  Religion  heartily  approved  Antonelli’s  note  to 
the  powers  of  the  18th  of  February,  requesting  their  inter¬ 
vention  on  behalf  of  the  Pope,  and  gave  this  as  an  added 
reason  for  French  action.3  At  various  times  it  returned  to 
the  same  theme. 

Nothing  is  more  painful  to  us  [it  complained  on  the  13th  of 
March]  than  to  behold  during  the  past  months  the  so  inde¬ 
cisive  and  feeble  attitude  of  the  government  towards  Pope 
Pius  IX.  In  vain  Catholic  France  has  incessantly  called  the 
attention  of  the  divers  powers  that  have  successively  ruled  it, 
to  the  fact  that  the  honor  of  the  country,  the  national  tradi¬ 
tions,  the  higher  interest  of  order  and  of  civilization  in  Europe 
demand  a  prompt  and  vigorous  initiative. 

1  Ami  de  la  religion,  January  6,  1849. 

*  Univers,  January  20,  1849. 

*  Ami  de  la  religion,  March  8,  1849. 


209] 


THE  EXPEDITION  TO  ROME  IN  1849 


209 


Then  again  in  April  when  the  Italian  question  was  being 
debated  in  the  Assembly : 


We  are  obliged  to  return  with  as  much  insistence  as  grief  to 
the  inert  and  passive  role  which  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Af¬ 
fairs  imposes  on  our  country  in  the  question  of  Italy.  It 
would  appear  that  the  conferences  concerning  Rome  opened 
at  Gaeta  on  the  30th  of  March  between  the  plenipotentiaries 
of  France,  Austria,  Spain  and  Naples.  But  in  this  congress 
of  Catholic  powers,  France  ....  has  not  adopted  the  lang¬ 
uage  that  one  ought  to  expect  from  the  eldest  daughter  of  the 
Church.  .  .  .  Let  us  confess  it  without  evasion,  nothing  has 
been  more  distressing  for  us,  than  to  read  in  the  correspond¬ 
ence  in  our  opinion  the  best  authenticated,  how  the  delays  and 
the  evasions  of  France  are  arresting  the  action  of  the  Catholic 
powers  in  Italy.  It  is  then  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs 
who  still  annuls  here  the  good  will  and  the  enlightened  intel¬ 
ligence  of  the  President  of  the  Republic  and  of  the  majority 
of  the  members  of  the  government,  and  who  seems  to  forget 
this  utterance  made  on  the  eve  of  the  tenth  of  December  amid 
the  applause  of  France:  “  the  temporal  authority  of  the  Holy 
See  is  necessary  to  the  independence  and  liberty  of  Italy/’ 1 

And  the  Univers  of  April  tenth  declared: 

In  the  opinion  of  Catholic  peoples,  the  temporal  power  of  the 
Pope  is  necessary,  from  the  point  of  view  of  expediency,  if 
not  of  absolute  necessity,  to  the  independence  of  his  spiritual 
power.  The  result  is  that  the  Catholic  nations  of  Europe, 
even  on  the  supposition  that  they  unanimously  admit  the  prin¬ 
ciple  of  the  sovereignty  of  the  people,  have  the  right  to  demand 
that  the  Romans  be  allowed  to  apply  this  principle  only  in  so 
far  as  it  is  compatible  with  the  temporal  authority  of  the  head 
of  the  Church.  For  our  part,  we  do  not  see  what  serious  ob¬ 
jection  the  doctors  of  democracy  can  find  against  these  con¬ 
siderations. 


1  Ami  de  la  religion,  April  14,  1849. 


2io  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [2io 

Even  the  Ere  Nouvelle  affirmed  that,  although  in  normal 
times  the  temporal  power  of  the  Papacy  might  not  be  abso¬ 
lutely  necessary  to  “  the  existence  of  the  Pontificate  and  of 
the  Church”,  in  “the  present  state  of  the  world”  it  was 
the  condition  of  the  spiritual  independence  of  the  Pontiff.1 

But  besides  insisting  on  the  maintenance  of  the  temporal 
power  of  the  Papacy  because  of  its  ancient  rights,  and  be¬ 
cause  it  was  regarded  as  necessary  to  guarantee  the  spiritual 
power  as  well  as  the  liberty  of  the  head  of  the  Church,  the 
French  Catholics  declared  that  it  was  a  pledge  for  the  social 
stability  not  only  of  France,  but  also  of  Europe.  “  From 
the  point  of  view  of  civilization  and  of  peace”,  said  the 
Ami  de  la  Religion ,  “  the  establishment  in  the  center  of  the 
Mediterranean  peninsula  of  a  seat  of  social  disorganization 
and  of  revolutionary  propaganda  was  not  a  thing  to  be 
viewed  with  indifference.”  2  “  In  the  name  of  the  social 

order  ”  for  which  the  success  of  the  Roman  revolutionaries 
was  at  once  “  an  offense  and  a  peril  ”,  it  called  upon  the 
great  powers  to  intervene. 

When  it  is  a  question  of  reestablishing  the  social  order  on  its 
foundations,  what  is  the  use  of  recognizing  that  religion  is  the 
soundest  and  the  most  solid  of  all,  if  one  does  not  dare,  in  a 
situation  where  religion  is  exposed  to  the  greatest  of  perils, 
defend  it  and  preserve  it  openly?  [asked  the  Univers].  The 
direct  participation  of  France  in  the  restoration  of  Pius  IX 
to  Rome  would  have  been,  on  the  part  of  its  government,  a 
guarantee  of  order  and  peace,  the  consequences  of  which 
would  have  had  ....  a  great  effect  both  at  home  and 
abroad.3 


The  Univers  saw  no  hope  or  safety  for  society  in  the  “  vulgar 
spirit  of  order  ”  or  the  “  materialistic  spirit  ”  of  force  which 


1  November  30,  1848. 

1  February  22,  1849. 

3  Univers,  April  18,  1849. 


THE  EXPEDITION  TO  ROME  IN  1849 


21  T 


2 1 1  ] 

had  conquered  on  the  24th  of  June.1  It  beheld  in  Pius  IX  the 
“  corner-stone  of  the  social  edifice  ”.  Whatever  the  states¬ 
men  of  Europe  did  for  or  against  Pius  IX,  they  did  for 
or  against  the  salvation  of  society.2  Thus  the  Catholic 
press  made  use  of  the  “  peril  of  socialism  ”  to  urge  the 
French  government  to  intervene  on  behalf  of  Pius  IX. 

Within  the  government  itself  it  was  also  urged  that 
France  take  the  decisive  step  and  intervene  in  favor  of  the 
Pope.  Falloux,  the  Minister  of  Worship  and  Public  In¬ 
trusion,  was  the  warmest  partizan  of  such  a  policy.  The 
hope  of  restoring  Pius  IX  to  his  temporal  power  had  been, 
as  we  have  seen,  one  of  the  motives  that  led  him  to  take 
office.3  Moreover,  Odilon  Barrot,  who  was  then  at  the 
head  of  the  Ministry,  relates  that  M.  Falloux,  incited  by 
the  impatience  of  his  own  party  as  well  as  by  his  own  con¬ 
victions,  eagerly  urged  them  “  to  pronounce  for  the  im¬ 
mediate  restoration  of  the  power  of  the  Pope  at  Rome.” 
“  He  hardly  allowed  a  session  of  the  council  to  pass  without 
raising  the  question  of  intervention.’' 4  Falloux  also 
seems  to  have  urged  the  President  to  undertake  the  mission 
that  the  Catholics  so  keenly  desired.5  And  Louis  Napoleon, 
according  to  Odilon  Barrot,  was  no  more  insensible  than 
General  Cavaignac  had  been  of  the  honor  that  would  de¬ 
volve  from  the  restoration  of  the  “  loved  and  revered  head 
of  Catholicism  ”.  Besides,  the  President  did  not  lack 
counsellors  who,  urging  the  advantage  that  would  accrue  to 
him  in  the  future  if  he  would  play  the  role  of  “  protector 
of  the  Catholic  Faith,”  insinuated  that  it  might  well  help 
him  to  realize  his  ambitions.6 

1  Univers,  January  1,  1849. 

*  Ibid.,  and  April  27,  1849. 

3  Cf.  supra,  p.  194. 

4  Odilon  Barrot,  op.  cit.,  vol.  iii,  p.  145. 

6  Falloux,  op.  cit.,  vol.  i,  pp.  368-369. 

6  Barrot,  op.  cit.,  vol.  iii,  pp.  145  et  seq. 


212  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [212 

But  in  spite  of  the  pressure  that  was  brought  to  bear  on 
the  government  by  the  ardent  champions  of  the  rights  of 
Pius  IX,  no  immediate  action  was  -taken.  The  most  that 
they  could  obtain  was  the  refusal  of  the  French  Govern¬ 
ment  to  recognize  the  Roman  Republic  or  to  receive  its 
agents.1 

Various  motives  were  dictating  this  policy  of  non-inter¬ 
vention.  The  “  Mountain  ”  2  was  hostile  to  any  move¬ 
ment  that  they  suspected  of  being  in  favor  of  Pius  IX,  and 
Louis  Napoleon  had  not  altogether  got  over  his  desire  to 
conciliate  this  part  of  the  Assembly.3  Moreover  England 
was  exerting  pressure  to  prevent  France  from  adopting  an 
aggressive  foreign  policy.4  Most  important  of  all,  how¬ 
ever,  was  the  influence  of  Sardinia.  That  state,  as  we  have 
seen,  was  holding  out  for  a  purely  Italian  settlement  of 
the  Roman  question.  In  order  to  convert  the  members  of 
the  French  Cabinet  and  Assembly  who  were  opposed  to  such 
a  solution,  Giioberti  made  a  special  visit  to  Paris,  Falloux 
asserts  at  Louis  Napoleon’s  own  request.5  The  latter,  as 
early  as  the  28th  of  December,  1848,  had  so  far  adopted 
the  ideas  of  Gioberti  that  he  talked  of  placing  the  Pope 
when  restored  at  the  head  of  an  Italian  league  or  confedera¬ 
tion  arranged  for  the  satisfaction  of  the  claims  of  Italian 

1  Falloux,  op.  cit.,  vol.  i,  pp.  368-369. 

2  The  extreme  left  of  the  assembly.  So-called  in  imitation  of  their 
predecessors  under  the  First  Republic. 

s  Senior,  Conversations  with  Thiers,  “As  his  (Louis  Napoleon’s) 
policy  is  purely  selfish,  he  wishes  to  offend  no  party  unless  he  can 
destroy  it.  He  was  trying  at  this  time  to  conciliate  the  Montague 
pp.  54  et  seq. 

4  “  Ever  since  the  Revolution,  my  one  object,  which  I  have  uniformly 
kept  in  view,  has  been  to  prevent  the  appearance  of  a  French  soldier 
beyond  the  French  territory.  I  consider  that  upon  that  one  point,  in 
the  present  state  of  Europe,  may  turn  the  question  of  a  general  war.” 
Normanby,  My  year  of  the  Revolution,  vol.  ii,  pp.  336-337. 

5  Op.  cit.,  vol.  i,  pp.  369  et  seq. 


THE  EXPEDITION  TO  ROME  IN  1849 


213] 


213 


Nationalism.1  It  was  not  difficult  therefore  for  the  Min¬ 
ister  of  Sardinia  and  the  President  of  the  French  Republic 
to  agree.  The  outcome  seems  to  have  been  the  consent  of 
Louis  Napoleon  to  allow  Sardinia  to  act  alone.2 

But  Gioberti  was  unable  to  convert  the  entire  Cabinet  to 
his  way  of  thinking.  Amongst  the  dissidents  there  always 
remained  Falloux  and  the  party  that  he  represented.  In 
spite  of  the  efforts  of  the  President  to  bring  him  to  favor 
his  views,3  Falloux  persisted  in  demanding  that  France 
should  act  independently. 


The  endeavor  to  conceal  France  behind  Piedmont  [said  he  to 
the  President]  is  like  trying  to  hide  a  giant  under  a  blade  of 
grass.  Everybody  will  see  us,  Austria  first  of  all.  France 
by  openly  declaring  herself  would  stop  Austria,  but  France 
hiding  under  cover  of  Piedmont  would  be  defeated  without 
an  opportunity  of  defending  herself  and  without  obtaining  the 
benefit  either  of  the  revolutionary  propaganda  or  that  of  the 
conservative  action.'4 


“  Piedmont  should  second  France  in  Italy,  and  not  the 
French  conceal  themselves  behind  the  Piedmontese T  5 

Events,  however,  were  playing  into  the  hands  of  those 
who  favored  a  policy  of  intervention  on  behalf  of  the  Pope.6 

1Normanby  to  Palmerston,  December  28,  1848. 

2  Falloux,  Antecedents  et  consequences  de  la  situation  actuelle 
(Paris,  i860),  pp.  8-9;  Gaillard,  op.  cit.,  p.  195. 

3  So  Falloux,  Memoirs,  vol.  i,  p.  369. 

4  Falloux,  Memoirs,  vol.  i,  pp.  369-370;  Antecedents,  pp.  8-9. 

5  Ibid.,  p.  9. 

6  While  the  Catholics  were  pressing  the  government  to  intervene  at 
Rome  on  behalf  of  the  Pope,  the  left  wing  of  the  Republican  party  was 
urging  intervention  on  behalf  of  the  Roman  revolutionaries.  Ledru- 
Rollin  was  the  great  exponent  of  this  policy  in  the  Assembly.  As  early 
as  January  he  accused  the  government  of  conspiring  with  Austria  and 
Naoles  to  effect  a  Papal  restoration,  or  if  not  conspiring,  at  least  con- 


214  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [214 

The  hope  that  the  Roman  question  would  be  settled  with¬ 
out  foreign  intervention,  either  through  the  Roman  Re¬ 
public  dying  of  its  own  inherent  weakness,  as  the  govern¬ 
ment  agents  at  Rome  reported,1  or  through  a  restoration  of 
the  Pope  by  the  arms  of  Sardinia,  was  destroyed  by  the  de¬ 
feat  of  the  latter  power  by  Austria  in  the  battle  of  Novara 
on  the  2 2nd  of  March.2 

The  Conference  of  Gaeta  was  likewise  working  against 
the  settlement  of  the  Roman  question  as  the  French  desired, 
since  the  majority  of  the  representatives,  encouraged  by  the 
repulse  of  Piedmont,  were  pressing  for  an  immediate  armed 
intervention  in  the  Roman  States.  Austria  desired  to  re¬ 
store  Pius  IX  without  imposing  any  conditions  upon  him; 
and  in  this  Naples  and  Spain  supported  her.3  Only  France 
stood  out  for  some  guarantees  for  the  liberties  of  the 

senting  thereto.  He  disapproved  of  the  policy  of  negotiation  as  heartily 
as  did  Falloux.  “  Negotiation  is  not  possible,”  he  declared.  “  It  is 
action  that  is  the  need  of  the  moment,  action  in  favor  of  a  people  that 
has  justly  risen  against  its  sovereign”;  and  he  appealed  to  the  manifesto 
of  Lamartine  which  pledged  France  to  intervene  on  behalf  of  oppressed 
nationalities.  To  protest  against  the  legitimacy  of  the  revolution  at 
Rome,  he  affirmed,  is  to  protest  against  that  of  the  Revolution  of 
February.  “  Yes,  these  revolutions  are  sisters.  Only  despots  or  aris¬ 
tocrats  can  proclaim  it  otherwise.”  On  February  20th  he  declared 
that  “  the  proclamation  of  the  Republic  at  Rome  should  be  a  grand 
piece  of  good  news  for  the  friends  of  liberty.”  “  From  what  right,  in 
virtue  of  what  principle,”  asked  citizen  Bac,  “  does  the  French  Republic 
protest  against  the  proclamation  of  the  Roman  Republic?”  “From 
whence  have  you  derived  sufficient  authority  to  condemn  a  people  that 
rises  up  against  its  sovereign?”  “To  deny  Rome  the  right  to  drive 
out  its  temporal  prince,”  said  Ledru-Rollin,  “  is  to  deny  that  France 
was  right  in  driving  out  Louis-Philippe.”  Rome  has  the  right  to  count 
on  France,  he  declared.  But  what  are  you  going  to  do?  he  asked. 
“Intervene?  Intervene  to  stamp  out  liberty?  You  cannot  do  that 
without  violating  the  French  constitution.  ...” 

1  Barrot,  op.  cit.}  vol.  iii,  p.  147. 

1 Ibid . 

*  Farini,  op.  cit.,  vol.  iii,  p.  398. 


THE  EXPEDITION  TO  ROME  IN  1849 


215 


215] 

Roman  people.  Learning  the  views,  of  his  colleagues,  the 
Duke  d’Hareourt  declared  that  his  powers  were  not  suffi¬ 
cient  to  enable  him  to  involve  France  in  an  alliance  for  the 
unconditional  restoration  of  the  Pope.1  The  defeat  of 
Piedmont  combined  with  the  temper  of  the  proceedings  at 
Gaeta  drove  France  (into  action.2 

Stirred  by  the  news  of  Novara  and  fearing  Austrian  pre¬ 
ponderance  in  Italy,  the  French  Assembly  passed  a  resolu¬ 
tion  declaring : 

That  if,  in  order  the  better  to  guarantee  the  integrity  of  Pied¬ 
montese  territory  and  the  better  to  safeguard  the  interests  and 
honor  of  France,  the  executive  power  believes  it  ought  to  give 
to  its  negotiations  the  support  of  a  partial  and  temporary  oc¬ 
cupation  of  Italy,  it  will  find  in  the  National  Assembly  the 
most  complete  support.3 

The  executive  was  not  less  stirred  by  the  intelligence  of 
the  defeat  of  Novara  than  the  Assembly.  It  fell  like  a 
thunderbolt  upon  the  President. 

I  allowed  the  first  disagreeable  impression  to  pass  over  at  the 
Elysee  [said  Falloux]  and  then  I  went  and  asked  the  Presid¬ 
ent  if  we  were  to  allow  Austria,  who  was  already  preparing 
for  her  march  forward,  to  absorb  the  Papal  States  and  render 
Pius  IX  unpopular  by  placing  him  under  the  protection  of  a 
power  so  repugnant  to  Italy.  “  To-day  you  are  right  ”,  he 
answered.  “  France  can  no  longer  remain  a  passive  spectator, 
and  in  face  of  the  triumphant  Austrian  flag,  ours  will  be  hailed] 
in  Italy  with  unanimous  acclamations.”  From  this  time  the 
President  wished  for  and  hastened  on  the  departure  of  our 
troops,  already  concentrated  on  the  coast  of  France  by  Gen¬ 
eral  Cavaignac.4 

1  Farini,  op.  cit.,  vol.  iii,  p.  398;  Balleydier,  op.  cit.,  vol.  ii,  p.  70; 
Bianchi,  op.  cit.,  document  xxxvi. 

*  Barrot,  op.  cit.,  vol.  iii,  p.  191. 

1  Moniteur,  April  1,  1849:  session  of  March  31. 

4  Memoirs  of  a  Royalist,  vol.  i,  pp.  371-372. 


216  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [2i6 

Indeed  Thiers  has  related  that  after  the  receipt  of  the  news 
of  Novara  he  had  great  difficulty  in  restraining  the  warlike 
propensities  of  Louis  Napoleon  who  desired  to  send  an 
army  at  once  across  the  Alps  to  restrain  Austrian  aggran¬ 
dizement.1  So  the  probability  is  that  the  President  desired 
to  intervene  in  Italy  more  for  the  sake  of  opposing  Austria 
than  for  the  purpose  of  aiding  the  Pope.2  The  members 
of  the  Cabinet  were  likewise  in  favor  of  armed  intervention 
in  Italy.3  Thus,  although  “Catholic  convictions  were  not 
the  only  decisive  considerations,  the  Catholic  interests  and 
French  interests  were  indissolubly  linked.”  4 

Accordingly,  on  the  very  day  that  the  Cabinet  decided  to 
intervene  in  Italy,  the  16th  of  April,  Odilon  Barrot,  basing 
his  demands  on  the  resolution  of  the  Assembly  of  the  31st 
of  March,  appeared  before  that  body  and  asked  for  a  credit 
of  1,200,000  francs  for  an  expedition  to  the  Mediterranean.5 
Thiers  urged  him  to  say  nothing  about  the  Roman  Republic : 
neither  to  irritate  the  Mountain  by  asserting  an  intention  to 
overthrow  it,  nor  to  deceive  the  Assembly  by  pretending 
that  they  were  going  to  Italy  to  support  it.  “  Before  the 
Assembly  be  vague  ”,  counselled  he;  6  and  Odilon  Barrot 
was  vague. 

The  protection  of  our  countrymen,  the  right  to  maintain  our 
legitimate  influence  in  Italy,  the  desire  to  contribute  towards 
obtaining  for  the  Roman  populations  a  good  government 
founded  on  liberal  institutions :  all  make  it  our  duty  to  use  the 
authorization  you  have  given  us  [declared  the  head  of  the 

1  Senior,  Conversations  with  Thiers,  vol.  i,  p.  48. 

2  Barrot,  op.  cit.,  vol.  iii,  p.  193. 

3  Ibid.,  Falloux,  op.  cit.,  pp.  371-372. 

*  Ibid. 

6  Senior,  op.  cit.,  vol.  i,  p.  55;  Barrot,  op.  cit.,  vol.  iii,  pp.  193-194. 

*  Senior,  op.  cit.,  p.  55. 


THE  EXPEDITION  TO  ROME  IN  1849 


21 7 


217] 

Cabinet].  It  will  be  impossible  for  us  to  enter  more  into 
detail  without  compromising  the  end  that  we  have  in  view.1 

As  the  matter  was  urgent  the  Assembly  appointed  a  com¬ 
mittee  to  consider  the  matter.  The  committee  consisted  al¬ 
most  entirely  of  liberals  or  of  republicans;  but  the  ruling 
spirit  was  Adolf  Thiers,  After  hearing  the  Prime  Minister 
and  the  Minister  for  Foreign  Adairs,  Thiers  controlled  the 
committee  and  bluntly  informed  them  of  the  intention  of  the 
government. 

“  We  are  not  going  to  Civita-Vecchia  to  support  the  Roman 
Republic  ”  [he  declared].  “  We  are  going  there  to  restore  the 
Pope.”  This  was  a  shell  thrown  into  the  committee.  “  To 
restore  the  Pope!”  they  cried.  “  Yes  ”,  I  said,  “To  restore 
the  Pope,  and  I  think  I  can  give  you  sufficient  reasons.  Are 
you  prepared  to  make  common  cause  with  those  who  murdered 
Rossi  and  stormed  the  Quirinal?  Are  you  prepared  to  sup¬ 
port  a  government  which  has  been  imposed  on  the  Roman 
people  by  foreign  ruffians,  which  lives  by  terror,  by  assassina¬ 
tion  and  by  plunder?  Are  you  prepared  for  their  sake  to 
make  war  with  Austria,  backed  by  Russia,  already  in  posses¬ 
sion  of  all  Italy,  except  Piedmont,  and  supported  by  the 
sympathy  of  the  whole  Catholic  world?  Are  you  prepared  for 
their  sake  to  destroy  the  independence  of  the  central  authority 
which  gives  to  religion  consistency  and  uniformity,  and  to  let 
the  Pope  sink  into  a  Neapolitan  subject?  If  you  are  not  pre¬ 
pared  for  all  this,  you  are  not  prepared  to  support  the  Roman 
Republic. 

“  Another  alternative  is  to  remain  quiet,  and  to  see  the  Pope 
restored  by  the  Austrians.  They  desire  nothing  better.  The 
instant  that  we  refuse  to  restore  him  their  troops  will  cross 
the  Apennines.  They  are  waiting  only  for  our  decision.  Are 
you  willing  to  give  up  to  Austria  all  that  remains  of  Italy? 
This  of  course  is  not  a  subject  of  argument.  What  possible 
course  then  is  there  compatible  with  our  interests  and  our 

1  Barrot,  op.  cit.,  vol.  iii,  p.  193 ;  Senior,  op.  cit.,  vol.  i,  p.  55. 


218  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [218 

dignity,  except  to  take  the  initiative,  and  to  restore  the  Pope 
ourselves  ? 

“  And  this  too  is  the  conduct  most  beneficial  to  the  Roman 
People.  We  shall  relieve  them  from  the  foreign  banditti  that 
now  oppress  them  in  the  name  of  liberty.  This  indeed  the 
Austrians  would  do.  But  we  shall  do  what  the  Austrians 
would  not  do,  we  shall  induce  the  Pope  to  grant  them  liberal 
institutions.  A  nation  called  in  by  a  deposed  sovereign,  who 
restores  him,  has  a  right  to  give  advice  and  a  right  to  demand 
that  within  certain  restrictions  it  be  followed.  This  right  we 
shall  exercise.  Instead  of  the  violent  reaction  of  a  Pope 
brought  back  by  Austria,  there  will  be  only  the  reaction 
moderee  of  a  Pope  brought  back  by  France.” 

My  arguments  succeeded.  Grevy,  a  very  advanced  liberal, 
was,  I  think,  the  first  who  declared  himself  convinced;  the 
rest  followed,  and  Jules  Favre,  perhaps  the  most  democratic 
member  of  the  committee,  drew  up  the  report  advising  the 
Assembly  to  grant  the  credit.1 

Thus  Jules  Favre  went  before  the  Assembly,  as  Odilon 
Bar  rot  had  done,  with  the  intent  to  conceal  from  it  the  real 
motive  that  actuated  the  government.2  Fearing  lest  the 
Assembly  should  not  vote  the  credits  for  the  expedition  if 
the  real  object  were  baldy  stated,  Jules  Favre  not  only  de¬ 
clared  :  “  the  government  acts  with  perfect  freedom,  fet¬ 
tered  by  no  engagements,  consulting  only  its  own  interests, 
its  own  honor  and  the  influence  which  it  ought  to  exercise 
on  every  European  question;”  but  he  also  added,  what  he 
knew  was  not  the  truth :  “  the  government  does  not  propose 
that  France  shall  concur  in  overturning  the  Republican  gov¬ 
ernment  now  subsisting  in  Rome.”  3 

1  Senior,  op.  cit.,  vol.  i,  p.  57. 

2  Cf.  Seignobos,  La  Revolution  de  1848,  p.  296;  Bourgeois  et  Clermont, 
Rome  et  Napoleon  III  (Paris,  1907),  p.  17. 

3  Senior,  op.  cit.,  vol.  i,  pp.  59-do;  Odilon  Barrot,  op.  cit.,  vol.  iii, 
pp.  195-196,  where  Odilon  Barrot  betrays  the  real  intention  of  the  gov- 


THE  EXPEDITION  TO  ROME  IN  1849 


219 


219] 

Many  of  those  who  supported  the  government  motion  in¬ 
deed  affirmed  that  they  had  no  intention  of  going  to  Italy 
to  support  the  Roman  Republic  against  Austria.  The  con¬ 
tinued  refusal  of  the  government  to  recognize  the  Roman 
Republic  showed  as  much.  Moreover  Odilon  B'arrot  de¬ 
clared:  “We  do  not  wish  to  establish  any  solidarity  be¬ 
tween  the  existence  of  the  Roman  Republic  and  that  of  the 
French  Republic.”  1  General  Lamoriciere,  a  moderate  re¬ 
publican,  who  had  sat  on  the  committee,  was,  perhaps,  more 
explicit : 

I  believe  that  in  proceeding  to  Italy  [he  declared]  the  French 
forces  will  go  there,  if  not  to  save  the  Roman  Republic,  which 
cannot,  I  regret,  be  saved,  at  least  to  save  liberty.  ...  We 
have  in  the  committee  ....  questioned  at  length  the  head 
of  the  Cabinet  and  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  on  the 
Congress  of  Gaeta  and  on  the  consequences  that  had  resulted 
from  it  for  France.  If  we  had  believed  that  France  was 
leagued,  engaged  with  Austria,  with  Spain,  with  Naples  to 
intervene  in  Italy,  do  you  think  that  we  should  have  come  to 
you  to  propose  the  report  that  we  have  brought  to  the  tribune  ? 
Never!  But  it  is  because  there  have  resulted  positive  affirma¬ 
tions  from  men  of  probity,  whom  we  ought  to  believe,  whose 
word  we  do  believe,  that  France  will  act  independently.2 

In  view  of  such  declarations  it  is  difficult  to  see  how  the 

ernment.  “  The  Assembly  last  night,  at  twelve  o’clock,  adopted  the 
principle  of  the  government  proposition  on  the  subject  of  the  expedition 
to  Civita-Vecchia  by  a  majority  of  112:  395-283.  The  anarchy  pre¬ 
vailing  at  Rome,  the  impatience  of  the  Pope,  the  real  wishes  of  the 
population,  were  all  successively  given  as  reasons  for  the  appearance 
of  a  French  force  on  the  shores  of  the  Roman  territory;  whilst  great 
care  was  taken,  as  far  as  possible  to  veil  the  direct  object  of  the 
expedition,  the  destruction  of  the  republican  form  of  government  estab¬ 
lished  at  Rome.”  Normanby  to  Palmerston,  Paris,  April  17,  1849. 
F.  O.  27,  vol.  843. 

1  Journal  des  debats,  April  16,  1849. 

1  Hid. 


220  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [220 

Assembly  could  have  been  greatly  deceived  as  to  the  real 
motive  of  the  government.  Indeed  the  extreme  republicans 
in  the  Assembly  suspected  the  intentions  of  the  executive. 
“  When  one  comes,”  said  Emmanuel  Arago,  “  to  ask  of  us 
a  French  intervention  in  Italy,  it  is  necessary  that  at  the 
national  tribune  ....  the  head  of  the  Cabinet  formally 
declare  what  the  principles  are  that  will  guide  this  interven¬ 
tion.”  Before  voting  for  the  proposition  he  wanted  a  speci¬ 
fic  declaration  that  the  government  was  not  going  to  Italy 
“  to  make  the  flag  of  France  float  beside  that  of  Austria  in 
order  to  accomplish  the  work  of  Austria.”  1 

Ledru-Rollin  was  also  suspicious  of  the  intentions  of  the 
government. 

Citizens,  in  the  discourse  which  you  have  just  heard,  [said  he 
referring  to  the  speech  of  Odilon  Barrot]  a  word  has  struck; 
me.  That  word  is  the  thought  of  the  government:  this  fatal 
word,  I  have  foreseen  it  for  three  months;  to-day  it  has  just 
been  uttered :  it  is  the  restoration  of  the  Pope.  ...  I  ask  you 
to  reply  categorically  to  this :  Is  it  a  restoration  of  the  Pope 
that  you  wish  ?  Have  the  courage  to  say  it ;  come  out  from 
the  shade;  tear  away  the  veil.  If  it  is  a  restoration  of  the 
Pope,  it  is  necessary  that  the  country  know  as  much ;  for  I  am 
convinced  that  far  from  associating  itself  with  you,  the 
country  as  a  whole  will  rise  up  at  such  an  idea.2 

What  will  the  government  do,  if  the  Roman  Republic  re¬ 
fuses  to  receive  the  troops  of  the  French  Republic?  [asked 
citizen  Schoelcher,  a  member  of  the  committee,  who  also  be¬ 
longed  to  the  extreme  left].  Will  it  reestablish  the  Pope  on 
his  temporal  throne,  in  spite  of  the  wish  of  the  Roman  people  ? 
Well,  the  government  has  replied  “yes!” 

No!  that  is  inaccurate”  [interrupted  Jules  Favre].  “You 
are  completely  mistaken.” 

“  On  this  point  ”  [said  Germain  Sarrut,  another  member  of 

1  Journal  des  debats,  session  of  April  16,  1849. 

2  Ibid. 


THE  EXPEDITION  TO  ROME  IN  1849 


221 


22l] 

the  Committee]  “  the  majority  and  the  minority  of  the  com¬ 
mittee  have  never  been  agreed.  The  minority  pretends  that 
the  ministry  has  replied,  “  Yes  ”  ;  the  majority  affirms  that 
the  Ministry  has  evaded  the  point.  .  .  . 

“  The  Ministry  has  replied,  ‘No!’  [declared  Jules  Favre], 

“  The  Ministry  is  present  ”  [continued  Schoelcher]  ;  “  let 
it  extricate  us  from  the  difficulty.  The  minority  of  the  com¬ 
mittee  has  heard  the  things  that  I  have  just  said.  Now,  the 
question  is  very  simple;  I  have  the  honor  to  place  the  question 
before  the  ministry.  ...  If  the  Roman  Republic  does  not 
wish  to  receive  the  Pope,  what  will  the  French  troops  do? 
That  is  what  I  ask.  Well,  I  believe  that  the  French  troops, 
wishing  to  restore  the  Pope  to  Rome,  will  meet  with  resistance, 
a  great  resistance  at  Rome.”  1 

The  question  and  declaration  of  Citizen  Schoelcher  were 
met  with  protests  and  with  ironical  laughter  on  the  part  of 
the  right  wing  of  the  Assembly  and  with  silence  on  the  part 
of  the  Ministry.  The  question  was  then  put  to  vote  and 
carried  by  395  votes  against  283. 

It  seems  evident,  therefore,  that  the  French  government 
expected  their  expedition  to  be  welcomed  not  only  at  Civita- 
Vecchia,  but  also  at  Rome.2  Emissaries  from  the  latter 
place  were  continually  flocking  to  Paris  asserting  that  the 
Romans  were  waiting  to  receive  the  French  with  open  arms 
“  as  paladins  of  the  faith,  and  the  advance  guard  of  the 
Pope.”  3  Moreover,  the  commissioners,  whom  the  French 
Government  sent  to  Rome,  obtained  their  information  from 
the  clergy,  who  led  them  to  believe  that  French  intervention 

1  Journal  des  debats,  April  16,  1849. 

2“  It  seemed  easy  to  us,”  said  Louis  Napoleon,  “to  make  the  Romans, 
who  were  hard  pressed  on  all  sides,  understand  that  their  hope  of  safety 
lay  in  us  alone;  that  if  our  presence  meant  the  return  of  Pius  IX,  that 
sovereign,  faithful  to  himself,  would  bring  with  him  reconciliation  and 
liberty.”  Oeuvres  (Paris,  1854),  vol.  iii,  p.  74, 

3  Farini,  op.  cit.,  vol.  iv,  p.  13. 


222  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [222 

would  meet  with  no  opposition.1  Colonel  Le  Blanc  reported 
that  the  French  would  be  received  at  Civita-Vecchia  “  with¬ 
out  striking  a  Flow.”  2  The  government  believed  that  the 
Republic  at  Rome  was  based  upon  a  small  minority  who 
kept  the  majority  in  subjection.  To  such  a  degree  was  this 
opinion  broadcast  that  Odilon  Barrot  assents — what  is  not 
quite  accurate — that  all  parties  in  the  Assembly  believed  that 
“  at  the  mere  report  of  our  armed  intervention  the  Roman 
populace  would  renounce  their  republic  and  throw  them¬ 
selves  into  our  arms.”  3 

It  also  seems  evident  that  the  French  government  ex¬ 
pected  the  Court  of  Gaeta,  if  not  to  sanction  all  the  admin¬ 
istrative  reforms  that  Pius  IX  had  made  before  his  flight 
from  Rome,  at  least  to  make  some  very  generous  conces¬ 
sions  which  would  insure  him  a  welcome  in  the  Eternal 
City  as  its  temporal  ruler. 

The  idea  of  the  government,  in  deciding  upon  this  measure 
[wrote  Drouyn  de  Lhuys  to  d’Harcourt  and  Rayneval]  has 
not  been  either  to  impose  upon  the  Roman  people  a  system  of 
administration  which  their  free  will  would  have  rejected,  or 
to  compel  the  Pope,  when  he  shall  be  recalled  to  the  exercise 
of  his  temporal  power,  to  adopt  such  or  such  system  of  gov¬ 
ernment.  We  have  thought,  we  think  more  than  ever,  that  by 
the  force  of  circumstances,  and  in  consequence  of  the  natural 
disposition  of  men’s  minds,  the  system  of  administration  which 
was  founded  at  Rome  by  the  Revolution  of  November  is  des¬ 
tined  shortly  to  fall ;  that  the  Roman  people,  provided  it  is 
reassured  against  the  danger  of  a  reaction,  will  readily  replace 
itself  under  the  authority  of  the  Sovereign  Pontiff ;  and  that 
Pius  IX,  on  returning  to  his  dominions,  will  carry  back  thither 
the  generous,  enlightened  and  liberal  policy  with  which  he  has 

1  Farini,  op.  cit.,  vol.  iv,  p.  14. 

1  Gaillard,  op.  cit.,  p.  433. 

3  Barrot,  op.  cit.,  vol.  iii,  p.  199. 


THE  EXPEDITION  TO  ROME  IN  1849 


223 


223] 

lately  shown  himself  to  be  animated.  To  facilitate  a  recon¬ 
ciliation  which  should  be  carried  out  in  such  a  spirit,  to  furnish 
the  Pope  and  all  those  who,  at  Gaeta  as  well  as  at  Rome,  are 
disposed  to  contribute  thereto  with  the  support  which  they 
may  require  in  order  to  surmount  the  obstacles  raised  in  one 
sense  or  the  other  by  exaggerated  influences  or  by  evil  pas¬ 
sions,  such  is  the  object  which  we  have  assigned  to  our  expedi¬ 
tion.  Have  the  goodness,  when  announcing  in  concert  with 

M.  de  Rayneval  to  Cardinal  Antonelli  the  departure  of  the 
division  commanded  by  General  Oudinot,  clearly  to  explain  to 
him  the  object  and  the  bearing  of  the  resolution  which  we  have 
now  adopted.  He  will  understand  that  in  order  to  place  him¬ 
self  in  a  position  to  profit  by  it,  the  Pope  must  hasten  to 
publish  a  manifesto,  which,  by  guaranteeing  to  the  people 
liberal  institutions  in  conformity  with  their  wishes  as  well  as 
with  the  necessities  of  the  times,  shall  cause  the  overthrow  of 
all  resistance.  This  manifesto,  appearing  at  the  very  moment 
when  our  troops  show  themselves  on  the  coasts  of  the  States 
of  the  Church,  would  be  a  signal  for  a  reconciliation  from 
which  only  a  very  small  number  of  malcontents  would  be  ex¬ 
cluded.  You  cannot  insist  too  strongly  upon  the  utility  of,  or 
the  necessity  even  which  exists  for,  such  a  document.1 

Three  motives  seem  to  have  actuated  the  French  govern¬ 
ment  in  undertaking  the  expedition  to  Rome :  “  the  main¬ 
tenance  of  French  influence  in  Italy,  the  restoration  of  the 
Pope,  and  the  introduction  or  preservation  in  Rome  of 
liberal  institutions.’’ 2  Of  these  three  the  desire  to  exert 
French  influence  in  Italy  to  prevent  Austrian  aggrandize¬ 
ment  at  the  expense  of  Italian  liberties  was  doubtless  the 
compelling  motive.3  For  it  was  not  until  the  defeat  of 

1  British  parliamentary  papers ,  vol.  lviii.  Drouyn  de  Lhuys  to 
d’Harcourt  and  de  Rayneval,  Paris,  April  18,  1849. 

2  Senior,  Correspondence  and  conversations  of  A.  de  Tocqueville  with 

N.  W.  Senior,  vol.  i,  p.  231. 

1  Senior,  Conversations  with  Thiers,  vol.  i,  pp.  60-62.  “.  .  .  after  all 

it  was  not  for  the  sake  of  the  iRoman  people,  it  was  not  for  the 


224  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [224 

Piedmont  at  Novara,  when  the  power  of  Austria  seemed 
to  predominate,  that  France  was  stirred  to  action.  The 
sympathy  that  was  felt  for  Pius  IX,  the  feeling  that  the 
temporal  power  was  essential  to  safeguard  the  freedom  of 
the  Pope,  the  impatience  of  the  clerical  party  in  France, 
counted  for  much.1  Certainly  there  was  little  sympathy 
felt  for  the  leaders  of  the  Roman  Republic,  except  amongst 
the  radicals.  The  government  had  obtained  evidence  of 
relations  between  the  radicals  of  both  countries,  which  did 
not  tend  to  kindle  sympathy  with  Mazzini  and  his  followers 
who  were  now  in  control  at  Rome,  more  especially  as  the 
extremists  in  France  were  falling  into  greater  and  greater 
disrepute. 2  Even  Louis  Napoleon,  who  had  at  first  been 
inclined  to  appease  the  radicals,  was  beginning  to  recover 
from  his  fear  of  offending  them.  Fie  was  doubtless  aware 
that  intervention  on  behalf  of  the  Pope  would  gain  him 
much  credit  with  the  Catholic  party,  which  was  a  factor  of 
no  inconsiderable  importance.  Nevertheless,  it  is  doubtful 
if  either  the  desire  to  restore  Pius  IX  or  to  obtain  liberal 
institutions  for  the  Roman  people  would  have  impelled 
France  to  intervene,  if  it  had  not  been  for  forestalling 
Austria. 

III.  THE  OVERTHROW  OF  THE  ROMAN  REPUBLIC 

The  command  of  the  expedition  to  the  Roman  States  was 
entrusted  to  General  Oudinot,  Duke  de  Reggio,  a  man 
not  without  military  distinction,  and  the  son  of  a  distin¬ 
guished  general  of  the  Empire.  The  instructions  that  were 
given  him  by  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  were  of  such 

sake  of  the  Pope,  it  was  not  for  the  sake  of  Catholicism,  that  we  went 
to  Rome.  It  was  for  the  sake  of  France.  It  was  to  plant  the  French 
flag  on  the  Castle  of  St.  Angelo;  it  was  to  maintain  our  right  to  have 
one  half  of  Italy  if  Austria  seized  the  other.” 

1  Barrot,  op.  cit.,  vol.  iii,  pp.  200-201. 

*  Ibid.,  p.  192. 


THE  EXPEDITION  TO  ROME  IN  1849 


225 


225] 

a  nature  that  they  would  “  mislead  rather  than  guide  him.” 
While  recommending  him  to  march  on  Rome  only  if  he  ap¬ 
peared  to  be  summoned  by  the  wish  of  the  Roman  populace, 
they  betrayed  a  great  impatience  to  have  done  with  the 
Roman  Republic.1  Reminding  him  of  the  fact  that  Rome 
was  threatened  with  reaction  from  within  and  invasion  from 
without,  and  of  the  consequent  duty  that  France  felt  of  up¬ 
holding  her  own  influence  in  Italy  and  of  reestablishing  a 
regular  order  of  things  in  the  Roman  States,  which  should 
be  based  on  the  rights  and  the  interests  of  the  inhabitants, 
he  empowered  the  general  to  receive  any  propositions  from 
the  existing  authorities  at  Rome  which  would  pave  the  way 
for  such  a  result,  warning  him  at  the  same  time  to  guard 
against  any  act  that  might  be  interpreted  as  a  recognition 
of  the  Roman  Republic.  Resistance  at  Civita-Vecchia  he 
declared  unlikely;  but  should  it  be  offered,  the  commander 
was  not  to  be  balked  by  resistance  offered  in  the  name  of  a 
government  that  not  one  power  in  Europe  had  recognized. 
The  first  duty  of  the  general  on  landing  was  to  enter  into 
communication  with  d’Harcourt  and  Rayneval,  the  French 
envoys  at  Gaeta.  He  was  to  proceed  in  concert  with  them, 
receive  their  advice  and  then  take  the  measures  that  he 
deemed  advisable.  Officers  were  to  be  sent  to  Rome  to  ex¬ 
plain  to  the  existing  government  the  nature  of  their  mis¬ 
sion;  to  inform  them  that  the  general  was  not  there  to  up¬ 
hold  the  present  order  of  things;  and  to  exhort  them  to 
concur  in  such  arrangements  as  would  save  the  country  from 
further  perils.  All  the  details  of  the  expedition  were  left 
to  the  “  good  sense  ”  of  the  general,  which  was  deemed  suf¬ 
ficient  to  meet  any  contingency.2  The  instructions,  of  the 
Minister  of  War  were  a  little  more  explicit.  They  decreed 
that  General  Oudinot  should  remain  at  Civita-Vecchia  until 

1  Barrot,  op.  cit.,  vol.  iii,  p.  200. 

a  Farini,  op.  cit.,  vol.  iii,  pp.  41 1  et  seq. 


226  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [226 

he  should  receive  further  orders  from  the  government.  But 
this  clause  of  the  instructions  of  the  Minister  of  War  was 
overruled  by  the  instructions  of  the  Minister  of  Foreign 
Affairs,1 

On  the  24th  of  April  an  advance  squadron  of  the  French 
force, which  was  12,000  strong,  arrived  in  the  harbor  at 
Civita-Vecchia.  Immediately  a  deputation  landed  with  a 
letter  from  General  Oudinot  to  the  governor,  which,  stating 
the  purpose  of  the  expedition  couched  in  vague  terms,  re¬ 
quested  permission  to  disembark.  The  governor  of  the  port 
asked  fourteen  hours  in  which  to  reply.  But  as  M.Espivent, 
the  aide-de-camp  to  General  Oudinot,  pressed  for  an  im¬ 
mediate  answer,  the  governor  threatened  to  resist.  This 
threat  was  made  the  stronger  when  he  had  read  the  procla¬ 
mation  of  General  Oudinot,  which  expressed  the  intention 
of  France  to  restore  the  Papal  government.  At  that  M. 
Espivent  “  in  the  manner  of  a  crafty  diplomatist  more  than 
of  a  straightforward  soldier  ”  proceeded  to  allay  their  re¬ 
sentment.  He  affirmed  in  writing: 

The  government  of  the  French  Republic,  animated  by  liberal 
views,  declares  itself  bound  to  respect  the  wish  of  the  majority 
of  the  population  of  the  Roman  States,  and  ....  it  is  only 
come  in  the  character  of  a  friend  with  no  aim  beyond  that  of 
maintaining  its  legitimate  influence  here.  It  is  determined  to 
impose  no  form  of  government  on  the  populations  of  these 
states,  which  they  do  not  themselves  desire.2 

Won  over  by  these  promises,  the  governor  decided  not  to 
oppose  the  French  disembarkation.  Fie  informed  General 
Oudinot,  however,  that  he  would  have  to  be  governed  by 
orders  from  Rome.3 

1  Barrot,  op.  cit. 

2  Farini,  op.  cit.,  vol.  iii,  pp.  415  et  seq. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  417. 


THE  EXPEDITION  TO  ROME  IN  1849 


227] 


227 


Meanwhile  news  of  the  arrival  of  the  French  had  reached 
Rome.  The  Assembly,  stirred  by  the  impending  danger, 
held  a  special  sitting  at  midnight  on  the  24th  of  April, 
decided  to  oppose  the  French  expedition,  and  sent  the  min¬ 
ister  Rusconi  and  the  deputy  Pescantini  to  Civita-Vecchia 
with  a  remonstrance  addressed  to  General  Oudinot.  “  The 
Roman  Assembly  .  .  .  ft  read,  “  protests,  in  the  name 
of  God  and  of  the  people,  against  the  said  unexpected  in¬ 
vasion,  declares  its  fixed  resolution  to  resist,  and  throws 
upon  France  the  responsibility  for  all  the  consequences."  1 

When  the  orders  to  resist  had  arrived  from  Rome,  how¬ 
ever,  the  populace  of  'Oivita-Vecchia,  “  cajoled  by  Espivent,” 
were  crying  out  for  peace ; 2  and  when  they  discovered  that 
the  governor  had  convened  the  military  officers  to  carry  out 
his  orders  from  Rome,  they  became  so  tumultuous  that  it 
was  decided  not  to  oppose  the  French,  provided  General 
Oudinot  would  ratify  the  promises  of  his  aide-de-camp. 
This  lie  did.  The  French  troops  were  therefore  to  hold  the 
gates  and  the  cantonments  conjointly  with  the  Italians,  and 
the  two  tricolor  flags  were  to  float  above  the  town.  The 
French  troops  accordingly  disembarked  without  opposition. 
“  We  are  masters  of  Civita-Vecchia  without  striking  a 
blow  ”,  General  Oudinot  informed  his  government.  “  The 
authorities  have  offered  no  resistance.  The  inhabitants 
and  the  National  Guard  have  received  us  with  cheers.”  3 

One  of  the  first  acts  of  General  Oudinot  after  his  dis¬ 
embarkation  had  been,  in  accordance  with  his  instructions, 
to  despatch  Colonel  Le  Blanc  to  Rome  to  collaborate  with 

1  Farini,  op.  cit.,  vol.  iii,  p.  418. 

2  Mazzini  to  Marioni,  Rome,  April  28,  1849.  F.  0.  43,  vol.  4 6.  “  The 
governor  and  the  commandant  of  the  fort  had  protested ;  but  the 
population  deceived  by  these  proclamations,  did  not  think  it  its  duty 
to  resist.  A  council  of  war  unfortunately  permitted  the  disem¬ 
barkation.’' 

3  Bourgeois  et  Clermont,  op.  cit.,  p.  26. 


228  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [228 

the  French  Charge  cT Affairs  there  in  announcing  to  the 
Roman  Triumvirate  the  purpose  of  the  expedition.  Ac¬ 
cordingly,  on  his  arrival  in  Rome  late  in  the  evening  of  the 
26th  of  April,  Forbin-Janson  accompanied  by  Colonel  Le 
Blanc  called  on  the  Triumvirs  to  announce  the  intentions  of 
the  French  government,1  and  to  obtain  a,  peaceful  reception 
for  the  French  forces.  To  this  end  the  envoys  urged  the 
“  liberal  and  national  character  of  their  intervention  ” ; 
“  the  immense  service  that  they  were  rendering  the  Roman 
state  in  forestalling  the  Neapolitan  invasion,  in  preventing 
the  influence  of  Austria  from  dominating  there  as  in  the 
past  ” ;  “  the  guarantees  that  they  would  certainly  demand 
in  favor  of  the  constitutional  regime  ” ;  even  “  the  desire  of 
France  to  allow  the  internal  question  to  be  resolved  by  the 
spontaneous  expression  of  the  wish  of  the  population.”  2 
But  they  made  it  plain  that  it  was  the  intention  of  France 
to  put  the  Pope  back  on  the  throne.  To  Mazzini,  there¬ 
fore,  who  was  the  virtual  ruler  of  Rome,  all  hopes  of  con¬ 
ciliation  were  disappointed.  Nor  was  the  Assembly  less 
ready  to  resist  than  the  Triumvirate.  The  proclamations 
of  General  Oudinot,  which  were  read  in  the  Assembly,  pro¬ 
duced  a  “  universal  cry  of  indignation  and  of  war  ” ;  and  it 
therefore  enjoined  the  Triumvirate  to  take  what  measures 
it  deemed  necessary  to  “  save  the  Rpublic  at  any  cost,  and 
to  repel  force  by  force.”  3 

Nevertheless  Forbin-Janson,  in  the  very  letter  in  which 
he  announced  the  determination  of  Rome  to  resist  the 
French  expedition,  assured  General  Oudinot  that  any  re¬ 
sistance  that  Mazzini  and  his  party  could  offer  would  be 

1  Gaillard,  op.  cit.,  p.  434. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  435. 

3  Mazzini  to  Marioni  and  Borgatti,  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs,  to 
Marioni,  April  29,  1849.  F.  O.  43,  vol.  46;  Gaillard,  op.  cit.,  p.  437; 
Farini,  op.  cit.,  vol.  iv,  p.  4;  Bourgeois  et  Clermont,  op.  cit.,  p.  36. 


THE  EXPEDITION  TO  ROME  IN  1849 


229 


229] 

supported  only  by  “  three  or  four  hundred  foreigners  and 
the  desperadoes  of  the  cercle  populaire .”  The  population, 
he  informed  him,  would  not  second  Mazzini  in  his  “  des¬ 
perate  efforts.”  He  made  light  of  attempts  that  were  in 
progress  to  put  Rome  in  a  state  of  defense,  describing  them 
as  “  V elleites  de  resistance which  would  disappear  as  Gen¬ 
eral  Oudinot  advanced.1  Captain  Fabar,  whom  General 
Oudinot  had  also  sent  to  Rome,  reported  in  the  same  strain. 
“  I  have  seen  the  leaders  of  the  people  ”,  he  affirmed,  “  and 
notwithstanding  their  assertions,  I  am  convinced  that  the 
French  army  would  be  received  with  gratitude  in  the  Roman 
States,  provided  that  it  immediately  makes  a  vigorous  de¬ 
monstration  against  that  nest  of  Italian  mob  rule.”  2  And 
d'FIarcourt  and  Rayneval  wrote  from  Gaeta:  “  Forward, 
General!  You  will  not  find,  whatever  people  may  say,  any 
decided  resistance  at  Rome;  the  majority  of  the  citizens 
will  come  to  meet  you  as  soon  as  you  show  yourself.”  3 

Accordingly  on  the  28th  of  April  General  Oudinot  set 
out  f  rom  Givita-Vecchia  f  or  Rome  “  without  a  breaching 
gun  and  with  scarcely  a  biscuit,  but  full  of  vain  anticipation 
of  a  glorious  reception  and  a  gratuitous  banquet.”  4  Con¬ 
vinced  by  the  reports  of  his  agents  that  the  moderate  party 
only  awaited  his  approach  to  shake  off  the  yoke  of  a  faction 
of  demagogues,5  and  impelled  by  his  personal  desire  to  re¬ 
store  the  Pope,6  he  marched  to  the  gates  of  Rome.  So  care¬ 
less  had  he  been  of  all  reconnaissance  that,  on  the  strength  of 
an  antiquated  map'  of  the  city,  he  directed  one  part  of  his 
forces  against  a  gate  in  the  walls  which  had  been  closed  for 

1  Gaillard,  op.  cit.,  pp.  436-437. 

2  Farini,  op.  cit.,  vol.  iv,  p.  16. 

3  Ibid. 

4F.  O.  43,  vol.  46.  Lord  Napier  to  Lord  Palmerston,  May  12,  1849. 

5  Gaillard,  op.  cit.,  p.  174. 

6  Ibid.,  p.  162. 


230  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [230 

over  twenty  years.1  So  completely  were  the  French  under 
the  illusion  that  they  would  be  welcomed  at  Rome  that  some, 
it  was  said,  mistook  the  first  discharge  of  artillery  for  a 
customary  signal  of  mid-day.2  Lacking  siege  material  and 
reserves,  General  Oudinot  was  unable  to  rally  his  forces  and 
was  obliged  to  retire  leaving  some  260  prisoners  and  300 
dead  and  wounded.3 

The  defeat  of  General  Oudinot  had  the  effect  of  strength¬ 
ening  the  Triumvirate  at  Rome,  fostering  the  hope  that  the 
Republic  would  ultimately  triumph,  and  confirming  the 
Romans  in  their  determination  to  resist.  It  was  hoped 
that  England  would  support  them;  and  to  this  end  Marioni, 
a  Republican  envoy  in  London,  besought  Lord  Palmerston 
to  recognize  and  protect  the  Republic.4 5 

We  have  gained  [he  wrote]  a  claim  to  the  sympathies,  the 
respect,  I  had  almost  said  to  the  aid,  of  civilized  nations,  and 
consequently  of  England.  The  accusations  of  anarchy  and 
faction  disappear  before  the  daylight  of  facts,  which  now 
speak  too  loud  and  too  plain  to  leave  to  diplomacy  even  the 
shadow  of  a  pretense.  Will  your  excellency  permit  me  to 
flatter  myself  that  the  government  of  Her  Majesty  the  Queen 
will,  as  early  as  practicable,  recognize  our  Republic,  at  least 
as  a  government  de  facto  A 

1  Barrot,  op.  cit.,  vol.  iii,  p.  206. 

2  Farini,  op.  cit.,  vol.  iv,  p.  19. 

3F.  0.  43,  vol.  46.  Lord  Napier  to  Lord  Palmerston1:  “The  defeat 
of  the  French  was  certainly  caused  by  their  confidence  and  credulity. 
The  French  government  seems  to  have  been  fed  with  false  assurances 
that  their  arrival  was  warmly  desired,  that  the  Republican  party  was 
a  cowardly  and  hated  minority,  that  on  the  first  exhibition  of  the 
Catholic  standards,  the  friends  of  moderate  freedom,  the  friends  of 
Pius  would  overturn  the  Triumvirate  and  open  their  gates  with  joy  to 
their  deliverers.” 

*  Farini,  op.  cit.,  vol.  iv,  p.  144. 

5F.  O.  43,  vol.  46.  Marioni  to  Palmerston,  May  8,  1849. 


THE  EXPEDITION  TO  ROME  IN  1849 


231 


231] 

But  Palmerston  was  by  no  means  inclined  to  such  a  step. 
He  was  listening1  to  Signor  Calvi,  a  member  for  Bologna  in 
the  Roman  Assembly,  who  informed  him  that  in  spite  of 
“  the  settled  determination  of  the  people  of  the  Roman 
States  no  longer  to  remain  under  the  oppression  of  a  priestly 
government  ”,  “  the  great  majority  of  the  people  of  those 
states  ”  were  “  averse  to  the  Republican  form  of  govern¬ 
ment  ”,  and  wished  only  for  “  those  securities  of  person  and 
property  which  a  constitutional  form  of  government  was 
calculated  to  afford.”  1  Indeed  Palmerston  accepted  the 
French  view  that  the  Pope  should  be  restored  with  the  con¬ 
stitution  that  he  had  already  granted ; 2  and  advised  not 
only  Calvi,  but  Rusconi,  who  had  gone  to  London  to  sup¬ 
port  Mariomi,  to  that  effect.3  All  the  assistance  therefore 
that  he  was  prepared  to  give  the  Roman  Republic  was  good 
advice. 

Mazzini  was  inclined  to  hope  also  that  the  radicals  in  Paris 
would  succeed  in  overturning  their  government,  and  thus 
convert  the  Roman  Expedition  into  a  bulwark  for  the 
Roman  Republic,  as  Ledru-Rollin  and  his  followers  wished.* 
An  agent,  Accursi,  was  despatdhed  to  France  for  the  purpose 
of  treating  with  the  radicals  who  were  striving  to  rise  to 
power  there.5  Church  plate  which  was  seized  in  the  States 
of  the  Church  was  forwarded  to  Paris  to  aid  Ledru-Rollin 
in  accomplishing  his  designs.6  Moreover  an  attempt  was 
made  to  subvert  the  French  army  by  appealing  to  the  re¬ 
publican  sentiments  of  the  soldiers.  For  this  purpose  they 

1 F.  O.  27,  vol.  844.  Palmerston  to  Normanby,  May  16,  1849. 

2  Ibid. 

3Farini,  op.  cit.,  vol.  iv,  p.  145. 

iF.  O.  43,  vol.  46.  Napier  to  Normanby. 

6Farini,  op.  cit.,  vol.  iv,  p.  68. 

6F.  O.  27,  vol.  846.  Mr.  Woodmason  to  Lord  Palmerston,  Rome, 
July  4,  1849. 


232  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [232 

flattered  and  liberated  the  French  prisoners.  They  were  cor¬ 
dially  entertained  and  carried  to  visit  the  ancient  monuments 
and  holy  shrines.  I  saw  [said  Lord  Napier]  at  St.  Peter’s 
these  tipsy  captives  sobered  by  the  solemnity  of  the  place. 
The  flags  of  the  French  and  Roman  Republics  were  held  on 
the  high  altar  behind  the  canopy  of  bronze.  .  .  .  All  at  once 
they  fell  to  kissing  and  swore  they  would  never  fight  each 
other  more.  Nor  will  they,  for  when  the  prisoners  reached 
the  camp  General  Oudinot  sent  them  all  down  to  Civita-1 
Vecchia  and  shut  them  up.1 

A  “  monster  gift  of  cigars  ”,  which  were  wrapped  in  re¬ 
publican  handbills  and  sent  to  the  French  headquarters,  was 
also  doubtless  intended  to  subvert  the  French  army.2 

But  if  the  defeat  of  General  Oudinot  called  forth  re¬ 
joicing  and  awakened  hopes  at  Rome,  it  caused  consterna¬ 
tion  at  Paris. 

Before  the  official  despatch  of  General  Oudinot  giving 
details  of  his  action  before  Rome  had  reached  the  French 
government,  various  reports  of  his  defeat  had  been  received. 
Vague  rumors  were  current,  which  often  magnified  the  event 
and  gave  the  opposition  an  excuse  for  attacking  the  execu¬ 
tive.  Accordingly  in  the  session  of  the  Assembly  of  the 
7th  of  May  interpellations  were  addressed  to  the  govern¬ 
ment  asking  for  explanations  of  its  conduct  of  the  Roman 
Expedition.  Jules  Favre  began,  in  a  speech  of  marked 
virulence,  an  attack  on  the  executive,  which,  in  view  of  the 
fact  that  he  was  reporter  for  the  parliamentary  commission 
that  decided  to  restore  the  Pope,  it  is  difficult  to  regard  as 
anything  but  an  attempt  to  discredit  and  overthrow  the  ex¬ 
isting  administration.3  You  have  made  France  “  the  gen- 

lF.  O.  43,  vol.  46.  Lord  Napier  to  Lord  Normanby. 

2  King,  Bolton,  Life  of  Mazzini,  2nd  ed  (London,  1912),  p.  134. 

3  Barrot,  op.  cit.,  vol.  iii,  p.  210;  F.  0.  27,  vol.  844,  Normanby  to 
Palmerston,  May  8,  1849. 


THE  EXPEDITION  TO  ROME  IN  1849 


233] 


233 


darme  of  absolutism  ”  was  the  accusation  that  he  hurled 
against  them.1  The  executive  pleaded  in  extenuation  that 
all  the  information  available  was  contained  in  letters  ad¬ 
dressed  to  private  individuals,  which,  without  official  re¬ 
ports,  was  insufficient  to  condemn  the  government;  that  the 
opposition  met  at  Rome  was  due  to  the  presence  of  foreig¬ 
ners  there,  rather  than  to  the  hostility  of  the  Roman  people 
themselves ;  that  even  the  Assembly  had  not  desired  to  recog¬ 
nize  the  Roman  Republic.  Nevertheless  it  was  evident  that 
the  government  was  seriously  embarrassed.2  A  committee 
was  appointed  by  the  Assembly,  which,  after  hearing  the 
instructions  given  to  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs,  pro¬ 
posed  the  following  resolution :  “  The  National  Assembly 
invites  the  government  to  take  without  delay  the  necessary 
measures  that  the  Italian  Expedition  may  no  longer  be 
diverted  from  the  purpose  that  was  assigned  to  it.”  3  The 
resolution  was  voted  by  the  Assembly  by  328  votes  against 
241.  But  inasmuch  as  it  did  not  define  definitely  the  object 
of  the  Expedition,  which  had  been  left  vague  at  the  outset, 
the  government  was  still  able  to  carry  out  its  own  concep¬ 
tion  of  the  Roman  Expedition  without  taking  too  seriously 
the  vote  of  the  Assembly. 

The  news  of  the  defeat  of  General  Oudinot  had  quite  a 
different  effect  upon  Louis  Napoleon.  He  told  Lord  Nor¬ 
manby  that  the  probability  was  that  “  some  over-zealous 
agents  ”  had  represented  the  chances  of  resistance  at  Rome 
as  quite  absurd  and  had  urged  him  to  lose  no  time  in  march¬ 
ing  on  the  Eternal  City.  When  asked  if  he  were  satisfied 
with  the  conduct  of  the  troops,  he  replied,  “  Completely 
so.”  4  But  he  could  noit  endure  that  the  military  honor  of 


1  Journal  des  debats,  session  of  May  7,  1849. 

2  Normanby  to  Palmerston,  May  8. 

3  Journal  des  debats,  session  of  May  7.  Farini,  op.  ext.,  vol.  iv,  p.  80. 

4  F.  0.  27,  vol.  844,  Normanby  to  Palmerston,  May  7,  1849. 


234  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [234 

France  should  be  stained;  and  he  wrote  a  letter  to  General 
Oudinot  that  caused  no  little  stir  and  added  to  the  embar¬ 
rassment  of  the  government : 

Our  soldiers  have  been  received  as  enemies  [he  complained]  : 
our  military  honor  is  involved ;  I  shall  not  suffer  it  to  be  stained. 
Reinforcements  shall  not  be  lacking  you.  Say  to  your  soldiers 
that  I  appreciate  their  bravery,  that  I  share  their  sufferings, 
and  that  they  can  always  count  on  my  support  and  on  my  re¬ 
cognition.1 

General  Oudinot' s  repulse  therefore  gave  Louis  Napoleon 
an  opportunity  to  curry  favor  with  the  army. 

To  the  Assembly,  this  letter  seemed  like  a  deliberate  at¬ 
tempt  on  the  part  of  the  executive  to  ignore  its  resolution. 
Grevy  inquired  if  it  were  private  correspondence  or  an  of¬ 
ficial  act,  and  asked  if  the  government  intended  to  execute 
the  decision  of  the  Assembly  taken  on  the  7th  of  May. 

“  Yes  ”,  interrupted  Ledru-Rollin,  “  the  letter  is  official, 
for  it  engages  your  policy  in  spite  of  you.”  “  It  is  certain 
.  .  .  .  that  this  letter  is  a  public  document  which  will  reach 
our  soldiers,  which  will  influence  their  minds,  and  which 
will  engage  the  government  whatever  you  may  do.”  “  The 
check  of  the  French  arms  on  this  occasion  ”,  he  declared, 
“  is  not  discreditable  for  them.”  2 

Odilon  Barrot  answering  for  the  government  replied 
without  any  hesitation  that  the  letter  of  the  President  was 
not  an  official  act.  -He  informed  the  Assembly  that  the 
executive,  in  order  to  carry  out  the  will  of  the  Assembly 
as  expressed  in  the  resolution  of  the  7th  of  May,  had 
despatched  an  envoy  to  Rome,  M.  Ferdinand  de  Les- 
seps,  a  young  diplomatist  who,  he  affirmed,  possessed  their 
entire  confidence,  who  had  proved  himself  capable  of  hand- 

1  Journal  des  debats,  session  of  May  9,  1849. 

2  Ibid. 


THE  EXPEDITION  TO  ROME  IN  1849 


235 


235] 

ling  difficult  situations,  and  who  had  always  served  the 
cause  of  liberty  and  of  humanity.  Lesseps,  he  declared,  had 
received  formal  instructions  to  use  all  the  influence  he  could 
to  make  the  French  intervention  result  in  serious  and  real 
guarantees  of  liberty  for  the  Roman  States,1 

Nevertheless,  the  attack  upon  the  President  and  his 
ministers  by  the  “  Left  ”  increased  in  violence.  Ledru-Rollin 
declared  that  the  President's  letter  nullified  the  decision  of 
the  Assembly. 

As  to  the  conduct  of  the  Ministry  [he  continued]  it  confines 
itself  to  these  explanations:  “We  have  despatched  an  agent 
and  we  wish  a  judicious  liberty;  we  wish  to  reestablish  liberal 
institutions."  Worthless  equivocation!  What  it  is  necessary 
to  say  is,  that,  if  the  Republic  is  the  wish  of  the  nation,  you 
will  respect  it.2 

At  the  close  of  the  Session  of  the  nth  of  May  a  proposi¬ 
tion  signed  by  fifty-nine  members  was  submitted  to  the  As¬ 
sembly  to  accuse  the  President  and  his  ministers  with  hav¬ 
ing  violated  Article  V  of  the  Constitution,  which  declared 
that  the  French  Republic  respected  foreign  nationalities  and 
would  never  employ  its  force  against  the  liberty  of  any 
people.  The  proposition,  however,  was  defeated  by  388 
votes  against  138. 

Inded  tit  seems  probable  that  the  “  Left  ”  of  the  Assembly 
was  attempting  to  make  use  of  General  Oudinot’s  defeat 
to  overturn  the  government  and  to  establish  the  radicals  in 
power.  The  country  was  on  the  eve  of  new  elections ;  3  and 
the  socialists  were  leaving  no  stone  unturned  to  increase 
their  representation  in  the  new  assembly,  if  not  to  control 
it.  Lord  Normanby  writing  Lord  Palmerston  reported 

1  Journal  des  debats,  session  of  May  9. 

2  Ibid. 

sThe  elections  were  set  for  May  13,  1849. 


236  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [236 

that  a  “  general  uneasiness  ”  existed  “  as  to  the  imminence 
of  renewed  disturbances  and  conflicts  in  the  streets  of 
Paris  A1  The  more  timid  had  taken  precautions  to  obtain 
passports  for  their  families  so  that  they  might  leave  the 
country  in  case  of  a  new  insurrection.2  All  indications 
pointed  to  the  likelihood  of  the  radicals,  egged  on  by  Maz- 
zini  and  his  followers  at  Rome,  taking  advantage  of  the 
election  crisis  to  seize  the  reins  of  power  that  were  fast 
falling  into  the  hands  of  Louis  Napoleon  and  his  sup¬ 
porters. 

But  if  the  radicals  were  expecting  much  from  the  elec¬ 
tions,  so  also  were  the  conservatives. 

Alarmed  at  the  progress  socialism  was  making  amongst 
the  masses,  the  Parti  Catholique  and  the  Club  of  the  Rue  de 
Poitiers  had  combined  their  forces  in  order  to  stem  the 
tide  that  menaced  them.3  The  outcome  of  the  elections, 
therefore,  could  not  but  have  a  profound  effect  on  the 
Roman  Expedition,  according  as  radicals  or  conservatives 
were  returned  to  power.4 

As  there  was  little  doubt  that  the  majority  about  to  be 
returned  would  not  share  the  personal  sympathies  that  dic¬ 
tated  the  last  will  of  the  expiring  Assembly,  the  vote  of 
May  7,  the  executive  proposed  to  pay  little  attention  to  it.5: 
On  this  account  the  chief  need  of  the  government  was  to 
gain  time,  “  to  avoid  as  much  as  possible  irritating  debates, 
and  by  a  mixture  of  firmness  and  of  condescension,  to  re¬ 
move  every  pretext  for  extreme  and  desperate  measures  on 
the  pant  of  the  Assembly/’  6  To  this:  end  Ferdinand  de 

1  Normanby  to  Palmerston,  May  10,  1849. 

2  Ibid. 

*Cf.  supra,  chap.  iii. 

4  Bourgeois  et  Clermont,  op.  cit.,  p.  98. 

5  Normanby  to  Palmerston,  May  8,  1849.  This  is  the  interpretation  of 
Lord  Normanby. 

6  Barrot,  op.  cit.,  vol.  iii,  p.  216. 


THE  EXPEDITION  TO  ROME  IN  1849 


237 


237] 

Lesseps  was  sent  to  Rome.  His  negotiations  had  little  more 
significance  than  to  allow  the  executive  opportunity  to  tide 
over  an  internal  political  crisis  and  to  send  reinforcements 
to  General  Oudinot.1 

The  instructions  that  Lesseps  received,  in  order  to  veil 
the  real  intention  of  the  government  and  at  the  same  time 
give  the  appearance  of  fulfilling  the  will  of  an  Assembly 
whose  lease  of  life  had  almost  expired,  were  necessarily 
vague.  Drouyn  de  Lhuys  recommended  him  to  take  two 
copies  of  the  Moniteur  of  the  8th  of  May,  one  for  General 
Oudinot  and  one  for  himself,  containing  the  debate  and  re¬ 
solution  of  the  Assembly,  as  he  judged  that  it  was  from 
that  source  that  he  should  derive  his  instructions.2 3  But  the 
Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  also  gave  him  written  instruc¬ 
tions  which  interpreted  the  resolution  of  the  Assembly. 

The  object  which  we  propose  to  ourselves  [ran  these  in¬ 
structions]  is  that  of  saving  the  States  of  the  Church  from 
the  anarchy  by  which  they  are  afflicted,  and  of  preventing  a 
blind  reaction  from  bringing  present  injury  and  future  peril 
on  the  restoration  of  a  regular  government.  Everything  which 
prevents  other  powers,  animated  by  less  moderate  sentiments, 
from  prosecuting  an  intended  intervention,  will  leave  larger 
scope  for  our  direct  and  peculiar  influence,  and  tend,  as  a 
natural  result,  to  the  further  carrying  out  of  the  object  I  have 
mentioned.  You  will,  then,  whilst  using  all  diligence  to  attain 
this  termination  as  quickly  as  possible,  endeavor  to  steer  clear 
of  two  difficulties  which  will  lie  in  your  path.  It  is  necessary  ^ 
in  the  first  place,  that  you  should  abstain  from  everything 
which  may  justify  the  persons,  who  now  hold  the  reins  of 
government  in  the  Roman  States,  in  believing,  or  causing  to 
be  believed,  that  we  consider  theirs  a  regular  government, 

1  D’Harcourt,  Les  Quatres  minister es  de  M.  Drouyn  de  Lhuys  (Paris, 

1882),  pp.  27-29;  Barrot,  op.  cit.,  vol.  iii,  pp.  216-217. 

3  De  Lesseps,  Ma  Mission  a  Rome  (Paris,  1849),  pp.  16-17. 


238  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [238 

which  would  give  them  a  moral  power  that  they  do  not  at 
present  possess.  Secondly,  in  the  arrangements  which  you 
may  have  to  make  with  them  you  will  avoid  every  stipulation, 
every  expression,  calculated  to  arouse  the  susceptibilities  of 
the  Holy  See  and  of  those  now  assembled  at  Gaeta,  who  are 
but  too  much  inclined  to  think  that  we  are  disposed  to  hold 
very  cheap  the  authority  and  the  interests  of  the  Roman  Court. 
In  the  country  to  which  you  are  going,  and  with  the  persons 
with  whom  you  will  have  to  deal,  the  manner  is  not  less  im¬ 
portant  than  the  matter.  These  are  the  only  instructions  I 
can  give  you  at  present.  To  render  them  more  precise  and 
particular,  it  would  be  necessary  to  have  information  which 
we  do  not  yet  possess  as  to  what  has  taken  place  in  the  Roman 
States  within  the  last  few  days.  Your  correct  and  enlightened 
judgment  will  guide  you  according  to  circumstances.  You 
will  also  communicate  with  Messrs.  d’Harcourt  and  Rayneval 
respecting  everything  of  importance,  or  which  does  not  re¬ 
quire  an  immediate  decision.  It  is  unnecessary  for  me  to  re¬ 
commend  you  to  be  on  terms  of  intimacy  and  confidence  with 
General  Oudinot,  this  being  absolutely  essential  to  the  success 
of  the  enterprise  which  both  of  you  must  have  at  heart.1 

To  restore  the  Roman  Expedition  to  a  purpose  which  had 
at  the  outset  been  but  vaguely  defined;  ito  cooperate  with 
General  Oudinot,  who  had  been  instructed  by  Louis  Napo¬ 
leon  to  retrieve  the  disgrace  the  retreat  from  Rome  had  in¬ 
volved;  to  do  nothing  that  would  offend  the  Papal  court, 
which  was  determined  not  to  come  to  terms  with  the  Repub¬ 
licans  at  Rome;  to  perform  the  will  of  the  Assembly  and 
at  the  same  time  to  restore  the  Pope  to  a  city  ruled  by  a  gov¬ 
ernment  determined  not  to  submit  to  his  rule;  to  satisfy  the 
conflicting  desires  of  all  parties,  and  to  offend  none — such 
was  the  impossible  task  that  Lesseps  undertook. 

Arriving  at  the  camp  of  General  Oudinot  on  the  15th  of 
May  he  informed  the  commander-in-chief  of  the  mission 

1  Farini,  op.  cit.,  vol.  iv,  pp.  81  et  seq. ;  Lesseps,  op.  cit.,  pp.  17-20. 


THE  EXPEDITION  TO  ROME  IN  1849 


239 


239] 

that  had  been  intrusted  to  him,  and  then  proceeded  im¬ 
mediately  to  Rome.1  There,  he  reported  to  General 
Oudinot,  what  was  contrary  to  the  accepted  view  of  condi¬ 
tions,  that  he  beheld  an  entire  city  in  arms,  and  that  he 
found  a  population  determined  to  resist.  Putting  aside 
all  exaggerated  estimates,  he  declared,  one  can  count  on  at 
least  twenty-five  thousand  serious  combatants.  If  the 
French  were  to  enter  Rome  by  main  force,  he  reported,  they 
would  have  opposed  to  them,  not  only  foreign  adventurers, 
but  the  bourgeoisie,  the  shopkeepers,  the  youth — in  short  all 
classes  who  at  Paris  were  defending  order  and  society.2 
The  result  was  that  a  cessation  of  hostilities  was  arranged 
betwen  Rome  and  General  Oudinot,  which  permitted  the 
Roman  Republic  to  send  a  force  against  a  Neapolitan  army 
which  had  entered  the  States  of  the  Church,  and  gave  the 
French  commander  opportunity  to  obtain  reinforcements.3 

Lesseps,  who  was  himself  a  liberal,  at  once  sought  to  ar¬ 
range  a  convention  with  the  Roman  Triumvirate.  Accord¬ 
ingly  he  drew  up  a  series!  of  three  propositions,  which,  with 
the  consent  of  General  Oudinot,  he  submitted  to  the  Trium¬ 
virate  as  the  basis  of  negotiation.  These  propositions  af¬ 
firmed  :  the  Roman  States  request  the  fraternal  protection 
of  the  French  Republic;  the  Roman  populations  have  the 
right  to  pronounce  freely  on  the  form  of  their  government ; 
and  Rome  will  receive  as  friends  the  French  Army  which 
shall  perform  the  service  of  the  city  conjointly  with  the 
Romans.4  The  Triumvirate  (replied  on  the  19th  of  May 
that  they  were  unable  to  accept  the  propositions  of  Lesseps, 
inasmuch  as  they  did  not  find  in  them  sufficient  guarantees 
for  the  liberties  and  for  the  independence  of  the  Roman 

1  Lesseps,  op.  cit.,  p.  23. 

2  Ibid.,  pp.  21-24. 

3  Bourgeois  et  Clermont,  op.  cit.,  p.  83. 

4  Lesseps,  op.  cit.,  pp.  28-29;  Farini,  op.  cit.,  vol.  iv,  p.  104. 


240  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [240 

States.  “  The  Assembly  has  observed  ”,  ran  the  reply,  “  the 
way  in  which  the  words  ‘  Roman  Republic  ’  have  been  stud¬ 
iously  avoided  in  your  first  article  .  ...  lit  has  thought  that 
it  has  discerned  there  an  unfavorable  intention  .... 
Rome  has  no  need  of  protection.”  1  At  the  same  time 
they  intimated  that  they  were  preparing  a  set  of  counter 
proposition's.2 

But  Mazzini  and  his  fellow  Triumvirs  failed  to  keep  their 
promise  to  send  proposals.  They  sought  to  gain  time,  hop¬ 
ing  that  the  elections  in  France  would  place  the  radicals  in 
power  there.  Indeed  the  first  reports  from  Paris,  which 
stated  that  the  majority  consisted  of  “  ardent  Republicans  ”, 
were  published  in  a  Roman  paper,  and  seemed  to  lend  sup¬ 
port  to  'such  a  hope.3  Moreover  the  Roman  government 
sought  to  treat  with  General  Oudinot  over  the  head  of 
Lesseps.  Through  the  American  Ambassador,  Mr.  Cass, 
they  sent  a  series  of  propositions  to  the  General.  But  the 
latter  rejected  them  as  they  were  entirely  at  variance  with 
his  own  ideas,  and  amounted  to  a  recognition  of  the  Roman 
Republic.4 

This  incident  [said  Lesseps]  made  me  suspect  that  the  Roman 
executive  power,  seeing  me  determined  to  follow  invariably 
the  line  that  I  had  adopted  from  the  first,  sought  to  act  with¬ 
out  me  on  the  mind  of  the  commander-in-chief.  On  the  other 
hand,  I  knew  that  a  party,  having  little  confidence  in  the 
intentions  of  France  and  disposed  to  reject  every  attempt 
at  conciliation,  sought  to  present  me  in  the  eyes  of  the  Roman 
populace  as  a  source  of  agitation.  It  was  openly  said  in  the 
clubs  that  I  was  a  new  Rossi.5 

1  d’Harcourt,  op.  cit.,  p.  40. 

2  Lesseps,  op.  cit.,  p.  32. 

3  Bourgeois  et  Clermont,  op.  cit.,  p.  119. 

4 Lesseps,  op.  cit.,  p.  33;  Farini,  op.  cit.,  p.  hi. 

5  Lesseps,  op.  cit.,  pp.  33-34. 


THE  EXPEDITION  TO  ROME  IN  1849 


241 


241] 

At  the  same  time  the  leaders  of  the  army,  incited  by 
d’Harcourt,  who  complained  of  the  “  slowness  of  the  ex¬ 
pedition  ”  and  of  “  the  negotiations  with  the  Republican 
leaders  ”,  were  impatient  to  attack  and  enter  Rome,  if  nec¬ 
essary,  by  force. 1 

On  the  2 1  st  of  May,  therefore,  not  having  received  the 
counter-proposals  that  Mazzini  had  promised,  Lesseps  and 
General  Oudinot  sent  a  protest  to  the  Triumvirate,  announc¬ 
ing  the  breaking-off  of  the  negotiations.2  But  Mazzini, 
anxious  to  avoid  a  complete  rupture,  paid  Lesseps  and  Gen¬ 
eral  Oudinot  a  visit,  the  outcome  of  which  was  that  the 
latter  was  persuaded  to  be  patient  a  while  longer  and  the 
former  to  continue  the  negotiations.  Lesseps  knew  that 
Mazzini  had  deceived  him;  but  he  hoped  that  the  Roman 
populace,  taking  things  in  their  own  hands,  would  desert 
their  leader  and  come  to  reasonable  terms  with  the  French. 

On  the  24th  of  May,  fearing  for  his  life,  Lesseps  left 
Rome  and  went  to  take  up  his  abode  at  the  army  head¬ 
quarters.  As  General  Oudinot  had  repented  of  his  consent 
to  continue  the  negotiations,  and  as  the  army  officers  were 
clamoring  for  an  immediate  break  with  the  Romans,  a 
council  of  war  was  held.  The  discussion  centered  around 
the  latest  despatch  from  Paris  to  the  Commander-in-chief, 
which  instructed  him  to  endeavor  to  enter  Rome  in  accord 
with  the  inhabitants,  or  if  compelled  to  attack,  to  do  so  only 
if  certain  of  success.3  The  majority,  arguing  that  a  mere 
attack,  or  a  breach  in  the  walls  at  most,  would  suffice  to 
overthrow  all  opposition,  called  for  an  immediate  offensive. 
But  Lesseps  maintained  that  they  were  wrong;  that  hos¬ 
tilities  once  resumed  would  result  in  much  bloodshed  and 

1  Bourgeois  et  Clermont,  op.  cit.,  p.  120. 

2  Farini,  op.  cit.,  vol.  iv,  p.  112. 

s  Bourgeois  et  Clermont,  op.  cit.,  p.  135. 


242  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [242 

damage  to  buildings;  that  resistance  would  be  prolonged; 
and  that  they  would  be  compelled  to  undertake  a  real  siege. 
General  Molliere  supported  Lesseps  so  convincingly  that  it 
was  decided  to  maintain  the  status  quo.1 

In  spite  of  this  decision,  however,  dissatisfaction  was 
rife  over  the  method  of  negotiation.  While  the  two  parties 
in  the  Roman  Assembly,  those  who  favored  an  agreement 
with  the  French  and  those  who  opposed  any  such  conven¬ 
tion,  argued  and  debated,  the  officers  of  the  French  army 
announced  the  approach  of  the  season  of  fever,  and  gave 
that  fact  as  a  further  reason  for  ending  the  negotiation. 
Furthermore  Rayneval  paid  a  visit  to  headquarters,  and, 
in  an  interview  which  he  had  with  Lesseps,  complained  that 
the  latter  was  paralysing  the  action  of  the  army  and  pre¬ 
venting  them  from  once  more  covering  the  French  name 
with  glory.2 

On  the  29th  of  May  the  division  of  parties  in  the  Roman 
Assembly,  which  led  Lesseps  to  believe  that  an  “  honorable 
conciliation  ”  would  be  accepted,  and  the  desire  to  appease 
the  army,  actuated  him  in  sending  a  new  ultimatum  to  the 
Triumvirate,3  This  ultimatum  consisted  of  four  articles, 
which  declared  that  the  Romans  requested  the  protection  of 
the  French  Republic;  that  France  did  not  contest  the  right 
of  the  Romans  to  pronounce  on  their  form  of  government ; 
that  the  French  army  should  take  quarters  which  should  be 
deemed  suitable  as  much  for  the  defense  of  the  city  as  for 
the  health  of  the  troops;  and  that  the  French  Republic 
guaranteed  the  territories  occupied  by  its  troops  from  for¬ 
eign  invasion.4 

lesseps,  op.  cit.,  pp.  40-41 ;  Bourgeois  et  Clermont,  op.  cit.,  pp.  135-136. 

2  Bourgeois  et  Clermont,  op.  cit.,  p.  139. 

3  Lesseps,  op.  cit.,  pp.  43-44;  Bourgeois  et  Clermont,  op.  cit.,  p.  140; 
Gaillard,  op.  cit.,  pp.  217-218;  Farini,  op.  cit.,  vol.  iv,  pp.  167-168. 

4Farini,  op.  cit.,  vol.  iv,  pp.  167-168;  Lesseps,  op.  cit.,  pp.  45-46. 


THE  EXPEDITION  TO  ROME  IN  1849 


243 


243] 

The  Romans,  however,  were  not  satisfied  with  these  art¬ 
icles;  but  after  making  several  alterations,  the  chief  of  which 
was  that  the  French  troops  should  occupy  positions  outside 
the  city,  the  Roman  Assembly  accepted  them.  But  General 
Oudinot,  who  had  meanwhile  been  making  preparations  to 
attack  Rome,  indignantly  refused  to  sign  this  new  conven¬ 
tion,  alleging  that  it  was  dishonoring  to  the  French  army 4 

The  deadlock  between  the  Commander-in-chief  and  the 
diplomat  thus  created  on  the  31st  of  May  was  relieved  on 
the  1st  of  June  by  the  orders  that  were  received  from  Paris 
recalling  Lesseps  and  instructing  General  Oudinot  to  attack 
Rome.  “  The  provisional  arrangement  of  the  31st  of 
May  ”,  said  Odilon  Barrot,  “  compromised  the  honor  of 
France  and  the  dignity  of  our  arms.”  2 

The  fault  of  Lesseps  had  been  that  he  had  attempted  to 
execute  the  will  of  the  Constituent  Assembly  3  which  the 
executive  did  not  intend  that  lie  should  do.4  His  arrange¬ 
ments  with  the  Triumvirate,  which  would  have  compelled 
the  French  government  to  recognize  and  protect  the  Roman 
Republic,5  not  only  offended  the  military  pride  of  France, 

1  Lesseps,  op.  cit.,  p.  63. 

*Ibid.,  p.  78. 

9  Ibid.,  p.  80. 

*  d'Harcourt,  op.  cit.,  pp.  29-30.  “  He  who  receives  instructions 

during  times  of  crisis  ought  to  have  acquired  the  habit  of  reading 
between  the  lines.  In  the  case  in  question,  a  Minister  of  Foreign 
Affairs  was  plainly  unable  to  say  or  be  heard  saying  that  the  vote  of 
the  representatives  could  not  be  executed.  The  prudence  of  the  agent 
was  relied  on  to  reconcile  the  national  interest  with  the  respect  due 
an  expiring  Assembly.  The  instructions  given  possessed  a  very  vague 
character ;  at  bottom  they  meant :  Examine  the  situation  at  Rome 
resulting  from  the  last  events ;  give  us  an  account  of  them ;  confine 
yourself  to  partial  arrangements;  do  not  give  uneasiness  to  the  Holy 
See,  or  encouragement  to  the  Triumvirs,  and  maintain  a  reserve  which 
shall  enable  us  to  await  the  time,  now  very  near,  when  the  will  of  the 
majority  in  France  shall  be  better  known  to  us.” 

6  Gaillard,  op.  cit.,  p.  461. 


244  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [244 

but  made  no  mention  of  the  return  of  the  Pope,  without 
Which  no  negotiation  or  convention  could  be  acceptable  to 
the  executive.1  In  this  respect  even  the  first  convention  that 
Lesseps  had  proposed  to  the  Roman  Assembly,  on  the  19th 
of  May,  was  unacceptable.2  The  executive,  therefore,  feel¬ 
ing  that  their  agent  had  far  exceeded  his  instructions, 
awaited  only  a  favorable  opportunity  to  recall  him.3  While 
he  had  been  negotiating  at  Rome  the  elections  had  taken 
place  in  France,  which  gave  a  majority  of  500  conservatives 
out  of  a  legislature  of  750  members.  The  convocation  of 
this  Assembly  on  the  28th  of  May  gave  the  government  as¬ 
surance  of  support;  and  consequently  enabled  it  to  send,  on 
the  29th  of  May,  the  disavowal  of  fits  agent.4  The  orders 
to  attack  Rome,  however,  were  kept  secret  until  the  news 
of  that  event  reached  Paris  and  caused,  at  least  ostensibly, 
the  insurrection  of  the  13th  of  June.5 

The  capture  of  Rome  on  July  3,  after  a  stout  resistance 
and  an  inglorious  siege  of  a  month,  brought  the  overthrow 
of  the  Roman  Republic. 

IV.  THE  RESTORATION  OF  PIUS  IX 

The  purpose  of  France  in  intervening  in  the  Roman 
States  had  been  not  only  to  restore  the  Pope,  but  to  secure 
guarantees  for  the  liberties  of  the  Roman  people,  which, 
they  felt,  would  be  imperiled  if  Austria  or  Naples  were  al¬ 
lowed  a  free  hand.  It  was  the  Pope  as  constitutional  sover¬ 
eign  that  they  intended  to  put  back  on  his  throne.  They 
hoped  that  Pius  IX  would  issue  a  manifesto  assuring  his 

^ormanby  to  Palmerston,  May  29,  1849,  F.  O.  27 ,  vol.  844;  Barrot, 
op.  cit.,  vol.  iii,  pp.  289-290. 

2  Barrot,  op.  cit.,  pp.  289-290. 

3  Ibid. 

4Gaillard,  op.  cit.,  p.  220. 

3  de  Tocqueville,  Souvenirs. 


THE  EXPEDITION  TO  ROME  IN  1849 


245 


245] 

subjects  certain  liberties,  and  that  this  manifesto,  along  with 
the  appearance  of  a  French  force  at  Civita-Vecchia,  would 
prove  the  means  of  conciliation.  To  this  end  Drouyn  de 
Lhuys  instructed  the  French  plenipotentiaries  at  Gaeta  to 
urge  upon  the  Papal  court  the  necessity  for  such  a  docu¬ 
ment.  Accordingly  on  the  3rd  of  May  d’Harcourt  and 
Rayneval  addressed  a  note  to  Cardinal  Antonelli. 

The  intention  of  the  government  of  the  Republic  [they 
wrote]  is  not  to  impose  on  the  Roman  populations  a  regime 
which  their  free  will  would  have  rejected,  or  to  compel  his 
Holiness,  when  he  shall  have  been  recalled  to  the  exercise  of 
the  temporal  power,  to  adopt  this  or  that  system  of  govern¬ 
ment.  The  government  of  the  Republic  does  not  doubt  that 
the  Roman  people,  provided  they  are  reassured  against  the 
danger  of  a  reaction,  will  replace  themselves  with  alacrity 
under  the  authority  of  the  Sovereign  Pontiff,  and  that  Pius 
IX,  on  reentering  his  state,  will  bring  back  there  the  generous, 
enlightened  and  liberal  policy,  with  which  he  has  formerly 
been  animated.  To  facilitate  this  rapprochement,  to  contrive 
that  the  Holy  Father,  on  reentering  Rome,  may  find  himself 
in  a  situation  at  once  satisfactory  for  himself  and  his  people, 
that  he  may  thus  guarantee  Italy  and  Europe  against  new 
commotions,  and  disturb  neither  the  political  equilibrium  nor 
the  independence  of  the  Italian  States,  such  is  the  end  towards 
which  the  efforts  of  France  tend. 

In  accomplishing  this  design  the  French  Republic  counted 
much  on  the  assistance  of  the  Papal  government.  “  It 
hoped  that  the  government  of  his  Holiness  would  consider 
it  proper  to  publish  without  delay  a  manifesto,  which,  in 
guaranteeing  the  populations  liberal  institutions  and  such 
as  conformed  to  their  wishes  as  well  as  to  the  necessities 
of  the  times,  would  cause  all  resistance  to  fall.”  1 

But  the  French  government  had  miscalculated  the  attitude 

1  Bianchi,  op.  cit.,  vol.  vi,  pp.  495-497. 


246  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [246 

of  the  Papal  court  as  they  had  that  of  the  Roman  populace.1 
At  Gaeta,  Pius  IX  fell  more  and  more  under  the  illiberal 
influence  of  Cardinal  Antonelli,  the  Secretary  of  State, 
who  persuaded  the  Pope  that  his  attempt  at  reforms  had 
been  a  mistake,  that  liberal  institutions  undermined  the  very 
foundation  of  the  monarchy  on  which  the  temporal  power 
rested,  and  that  a  policy  of  reform  brought  him  nothing 
but  ingratitude.2  The  Revolution  at  Rome  and  the  murder 
of  Rossi,  which  had  also  doubtless  aroused  serious  reflec¬ 
tions  within  his  own  mind,  and  made  him  question  whether 
his  policy  had  been  a  wise  one,  did  but  incline  him  the 
more  to  listen  to  the  counsels  of  Cardinal  Antonelli.  More¬ 
over,  the  influence  of  Austria,  which  was  now  greater  at 
Gaeta  than  it  had  been  at  Rome  before  the  15th  of  Nov¬ 
ember,  1848,  was  against  a  liberal  policy.  The  Austrian 
Ambassador  as  well  as  the  King  of  Naples  and  the  Repre¬ 
sentative  of  Spain  were  encouraging  Cardinal  Antonelli  to 
“  dismiss  all  French  and  liberal  tendencies.”  3  The  fact 
that  the  other  Catholic  powers  at  Gaeta  were  in  favor  of 
an  unconditional  restoration  doubtless  strengthened  the 
Papal  court  in  its  resistance  to  the  demands  of  the  French. 
“  The  Pope  ”,  wrote  d’Harcourt  to  Drouyn  de  Lhuys,  “  not 
only  does  not  wish  to  make  any  concessions,  but  he  does 
not  wish  institutions  to  be  expected  in  the  future.  His 
whole  camarilla  is  Austrian  to  the  marrow  bone.”  4  Not 
until  the  14th  of  May  did  Cardinal  Antonelli  reply  to  the 
note  of  d’Harcourt  and  Rayneval  of  the  third,  and  then  it 
was  simply  to  state  that  the  Holy  Father  had  decided  never 
to  take  any  step  that  would  in  anywise  compromise  the 

1  Farini,  op.  cit.,  vol.  iv,  pp.  98  et  seq. 

2  About,  E.,  La  Question  romaine  (Brussels,  1859),  pp.  134,  143-144; 
Falloux,  Memoirs,  vol.  i,  pp.  428  et  seq. 

5  Farini,  op.  cit.,  vol.  iv,  p.  99. 

4  Bourgeois  et  Clermont,  op.  cit.,  p.  92. 


THE  EXPEDITION  TO  ROME  IN  1849 


247 


247] 

temporal  power.1  Early  in  May  it  was  current  in  the 
States  of  the  Church  that  the  Pope  had  declared  that  he 
would  return  to  Rome  as  absolute  master  or  not  at  all.2 

One  of  the  first  acts  of  General  Oudinot  after  the  cap¬ 
ture  of  Rome  had  been  to  despatch  Colonel  Niel  to  Gaeta 
with  the  keys  of  the  city  to  present  them  to  the  Pope,  and 
to  receive  in  return  a  personal  letter  from  Pius  IX,  thanking 
him  for  the  benefit  he  had  conferred  on  Europe  and  on  all 
civilized  society.3  Then  he  proceeded  to  restore  the  Papal 
administration.  The  publication  of  papers  was  prohibited, 
assemblages  were  forbidden,  the  civic  guard  was  disarmed, 
and  all  who  were  suspected  of  attachment  to  the  Republic 
or  aversion  to  the  new  government,  Italians  as  well  as 
foreigners,  were  banished.4  The  ancient  tribunals,  both  lay 
and  ecclesiastical,  were  restored,  and  along  with  them  the 
Inquisition,  the  judgments  of  which  General  Oudinot 
pledged  himself  to  support. 

The  regular  course  of  justice  has  been  interrupted  for  many 
months  [he  declared  in  a  circular].  It  is  in  order  to  remedy 
such  a  state  of  things,  no  less  prejudicial  to  the  interests  of 
the  people  of  Rome,  than  to  those  of  public  morality,  that  the 
appointment  of  a  Commissioner  General  of  Grace  and  Justice 
has  been  made.5 

But  Pius  IX,  hoping  to  obtain  larger  guarantees  for  a 
restoration  that  should  be  without  restrictions,  delayed  his 
return  to  Rome.6  On  the  17th  of  July  he  issued  a  procla- 

1  Bourgeois  et  Clermont,  op.  cit.,  p.  931. 

2  F.  0.  43,  vol.  46,  Lord  Napier  to  Lord  Palmerston,  May  12,  1849. 

3  Farini,  op.  cit.,  vol.  iv,  pp.  228-229. 

4  Ibid.,  p.  253. 

5  Ibid.,  pp.  253-254. 

*Ibid.,  pp.  254-255. 


248  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [248 

mation  to  “  his  most  beloved  subjects  ”,  which  expressed 
his  thankfulness  for  the  overthrow  of  the  Roman  Republic 
by  means  of  “  Catholic  arms  ”,  which,  stating  his  affection 
for  his  subjects  and  his  longing  to  be  in  their  midst,  never¬ 
theless  placed  his  own  independence  above  the  liberties  of 
his  subjects,  and  which  intimated  the  appointment  of  a 
Commission  to  carry  on  the  affairs  of  state.  Accordingly, 
three  cardinals,  Della  Genga,  Vannicelli,  and  Altiieri  were 
appointed  to  take  over  the  civil  administration  of  the  States 
of  the  Church;  and  it  was  into  their  hands  that,  on  the  31st 
of  July,  General  Oudinot  resigned  his  civil  authority.1 

While  General  Oudinot  was  effecting  a  restoration  of 
the  temporal  authority  of  the  Pope,  the  French  government 
continued  to  urge  upon  Pius  IX  the  necessity  of  giving 
some  guarantees  to  the  Roman  people.  Immediately  after 
the  fall  of  Rome,  Corcelle  had  been  sent  to  Gaeta  to  an¬ 
nounce  that  fact  to  the  Pope,  and  to  take  advantage  of  it 
to  obtain  a  pledge  of  some  concessions.  From  the  begin¬ 
ning  of  July  until  the  end  of  October,  1849,  the  entire 
correspondence  of  de  Tocqueville,  then  Minister  of  For¬ 
eign  Affairs,  with  Corcelle  was  “  to  induce  the  Pope  to 
grant  liberal  institutions  to  his  people.  I  considered  this  ”, 
de  Tocqueville  told  Senior,  “  as  the  most  important  of 
the  three  objects  of  the  expedition:  as  an  object  effecting 
not  only  our  own  interests,  but  our  honor;  as  an  object 
without  which  the  whole  expedition  was  a  lamentable  fail¬ 
ure.”  2  Founding  their  demands  on  the  fact  that  Pius  IX 
had  requested  their  aid,  and  the  consequent  right  which 
they  possessed  to  give  him  advice,  the  French  government 
asked  five  things  of  the  Papal  government :  a  recognition 
of  the  principle  of  individual  liberty  and  of  the  inviolabil- 

*4 

1  Farini,  op.  cit.,  p.  259. 

2  Senior,  Conversations  with  de  Tocqueville,  vol.  i,  p.  235. 


THE  EXPEDITION  TO  ROME  IN  1849 


249 


249] 

ity  of  private  property  as  laid  down  by  the  fundamental 
statute  of  the  Pope  of  the  17th  of  March,  1848;  a  new 
organization  of  the  Roman  courts  of  justice  which  should 
give  judicial  guarantees  to  the  citizens;  a  civil  code  like 
that  in  effect  in  Naples  and  Piedmont,  which  should  re¬ 
gulate  the  conditions  of  persons  and  of  property;  elective 
municipal  and  national  councils,  which  should  be  empowered 
to  deliberate  on  matters  of  taxation;  and  the  secularization 
of  the  public  administration.1 

But  Corcelle  could  get  nothing  but  general  promises  from 
the  Pope.2 

Do  you  expect  [said  he  to  Corcelle]  that  I  so  soon  forget 
the  purely  moral  nature  of  my  power  as  to  bind  myself  in  a 
certain  manner,  when  I  have  not  decided  on  questions  of  de¬ 
tail,  and  especially  when  I  am  called  upon  to  pronounce  in 
face  of  an  army  of  thirty  thousand  men  and  of  a  power  of 
the  first  rank,  whose  intentions  are  a  mystery  to  no  one? 
Ought  I  to  be  condemned  to  appear  to  yield  to  force?  If  I 
do  something  good,  is  it  not  necessary  that  my  deeds  may  be 
spontaneous  and  may  appear  so?  Do  you  not  know  my 
intentions?  Are  they  not  reassuring?  Have  I  not  taken  the 
initiative  in  the  reforms  of  which  you  speak?  3 

Nor  could  the  French  diplomats  obtain  any  more  definite 
promises.  “  Let  the  French  restore  the  Papal  government 
in  reality,  and  then  the  Pope  would  do  his  part  as  became 
a  Pope.”  4 

The  upshot  of  the  pressure  that  the  French  brought  to 
bear  on  the  Papal  court  was  the  postponement  of  the  Pope’s 

1  Senior,  op.  cit.,  vol.  i,  pp.  235  et  scq.;  Moniteur,  October  19,  1849. 
Session  of  October  18.  These  articles  were  embodied  in  a  note  which 
Corcelle  and  Rayneval  sent  to  Cardinal  Antonelli  on  August  19,  1849. 

2  Senior,  op.  cit.,  vol.  i,  p.  236. 

3  July  20,  1849,  de  la  Gorce,  op.  cit.,  vol.  ii,  p.  219. 

4Farini,  op.  cit.,  vol.  iv,  p.  248. 


250  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [250 

return  to  Rome.1  By  means  of  passive  resistance  the  ad¬ 
visors  of  Pius  IX  hoped  to  break  the  determination  of 
France.  One  threat  that  France  employed  was  to  call  a 
European  Congress  on  the  affairs  of  Rome,  which  would 
place  the  settlement  in  the  hands  of  Protestant  and  schis¬ 
matic  as  well  as  Catholic  powers.2  This  alarmed  the  Papal 
court  somewhat  ;  but  they  probably  perceived  that  it  was  a 
half-hearted  threat,  and  that  if  carried  out,  would  be  nearly 
as  disagreeable  to  France  as  to  themselves.3  And  the  Pope 
in  turn  threatened  to  refuse  to  return  to  Rome  and  thus 
throw  it  on  the  hands  of  the  French.  Whenever  Corcelle 
urged  him  to  make  definite  reforms,  he  would  answer : 
“  That  neither  threats  nor  entreaties  would  lead  him  to 
violate  a  scruple,  that  he  was  as  much  Pope  at  Gaeta  as  at 
Rome,  and  that  the  French  might  do  as  they  liked.”  4 

Dissatisfaction  was  rife  in  Paris  over  this  attitude  of 
the  Papal  court  and  its  proceedings.  The  French  were  ir¬ 
ritated  by  the  fact  that  the  amnesty,  which  they  had  ex¬ 
acted  “  with  great  exertion  ”,  excepted  all  those  who  had 
sat  in  the  Constituent  Assembly.5  They  complained  of  the 
servility  of  General  Oudinot  to  the  Cardinals  and  the  readi¬ 
ness  with  which  he  had  placed  the  administration  in  their 
hands.6  The  temper  of  the  government  was  manifested 
by  a  letter  which,  on  the  4th  of  August,  de  Tocqueville  ad¬ 
dressed  to  the  French  commander-in-chief. 

All  the  news  that  comes  to  me  from  Italy  [he  wrote]  more 

1  Farini,  op.  cit.,  vol.  iv,  p.  255;  Falloux,  Memoirs,  vol.  i,  p.  428; 
Barrot,  op.  cit.,  vol.  iii,  pp.  404  ct  seq. 

2  Senior,  op.  cit.,  p.  240;  Barrot,  op.  cit.,  vol.  iii,  p.  407. 

s  Ibid.,  p.  240. 

4  Ibid.,  p.  237. 

5  Ibid.,  pp.  236-237. 

5  Barrot,  op.  cit.,  vol.  iii,  p.  409. 


THE  EXPEDITION  TO  ROME  IN  1849 


251 


251] 

and  more  convinces  me  that,  since  the  restoration  of  the 
Papal  authority  at  Rome,  you  have  not  understood  your  role 
as  the  government  of  the  Republic  intended  it.  You  seem  to 
believe  that  from  that  time  there  is  nothing  more  for  you 
to  do  than  to  remain  a  passive  spectator  of  the  acts  of  the 
Pontifical  government.  It  is  not  thus,  I  repeat  it,  that  we 
understand  the  right  of  our  army  and  its  general. 

We  have  been  summoned  by  the  Pope  to  come  to  his  aid: 
we  have  reestablished  him  on  his  throne.  The  least  result 
should  be  that,  while  our  soldiers  and  our  flag  are  still  there, 
nothing  should  be  done  of  a  nature  to  imperil  our  security,  to 
diminish  our  legitimate  influence  in  Italy,  or  to  compromise 
our  honor. 

I  notice  in  the  papers  and  in  private  letters  that,  with  your 
concurrence,  or  at  least  under  your  eyes,  institutions  which 
have  excited  the  reprobation  of  Europe  have  been  set  up,  such 
as  the  Inquisition.  We  are  informed  that  some  men  [such 
as  Mamiani]  who-  took  no  part  in  the  last  revolution,  and 
who  have  not  desired  the  Republic,  have  been  persecuted  and 
expelled  from  Rome. 

Such  acts  ought  not  to  be  capable  of  being  committed  with¬ 
out  your  approval.  You  certainly  have  no  orders  to  give  to 
the  Papal  authorities,  but  when  the  moral  interest  of  your 
army,  or  ...  .  the  honor  of  your  government  seems  to 
you  to  be  compromised  by  the  result  of  a  measure,  you  have 
advice  to  give,  and  it  is  necessary  to  give  it  in  such  a  fashion 
that  it  will  cause  reflection  before  it  is  passed  over.  We  are 
counsellors  with  the  sword  at  our  side:  let  that  not  be  for¬ 
gotten.1 

Odilon  Barrot  and  de  Tocqueville  did  not  fail  to  reproach 
Falloux  for  not  employing  the  credit  that  his  efforts  and 
sollicitude  had  gained  him  at  Gae'ta  to  further  the  ends  of 
the  government.2  “  My  situation  became  more  delicate 

1  Gennarelli,  Achille,  II  govcrno  PontiHc o  e  lo  stato  Romano  (Prato, 
i860),  p.  lxviii. 

2  Falloux,  Memoirs,  vol.  i,  p.  436. 


252  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [252 

from  day  to  day,”  wrote  Falloux,  “  and  my  responsibility 
increased,  placed  as  I  was  between  men,  all  equally  con¬ 
scientious  and  all  equally  imperious,  some  thinking  that  I 
did  too  much,  others  that  I  did  too  little.”  1 *  But  Falloux 
was  scarcely  less  irritated  by  the  attitude  of  the  Papal 
court  than  the  other  members  of  the  Cabinet.  He  fre¬ 
quently  saw  the  Apostolic  Nuncio,  the  Papal  representa¬ 
tive  in  Paris,  at  the  Nunciature,  and  continually  repeated 
to  him : 

Take  care,  Monsignor,  do  not  allow  the  least  illusion  to  be 
entertained  at  Gaeta.  They  rely  upon  my  presence  in  the 
ministry  to  avert  all  danger,  and  I  really  think  I  deserve  the 
honor,  but  remember  that  should  any  crisis  occur,  I  have  no 
other  weapon  than  my  resignation,  and  that  my  resignation 
would  probably  be  the  signal  for  a  change  of  system,  upon 
which  you  would  have  little  reason  to  congratulate  yourself. 
I  know  quite  well  that  you  must  negotiate  with  five  or  six 
great  powers,  who  all  hold  very  different  views,  but  there  is 
one  power  that  you  neglect  too  much,  public  opinion.  In 
order  to  govern  the  world,  you  must  first  convert  it ;  to  dim¬ 
inish  the  number  and  obstinacy  of  claimants,  it  is  necessary 
to  send  some  at  least  away  satisfied.  For  three  centuries  or 
more  ancient  Europe  has  witnessed  monotonous  and  sad 
spectacles  in  matters  of  reform ;  everything  is  taken,  and,  alas ! 
nothing  is  given.  How  well  it  would  become  the  Church, 
and  how  worthy  of  her  it  would  be,  to  inaugurate  another 
method.3 

But  of  the  members  of  the  executive  Louis  Napoleon  per¬ 
haps  suffered  the  greatest  irritation  at  the  attitude  of  the 
Papal  court. 

1  Falloux,  Memoirs,  vol.  i,  p.  437. 

5  Barrot,  op.  cit.,  vol.  iii,  p.  412. 

3  Falloux,  Memoirs ,  vol.  i.  p.  437. 


THE  EXPEDITION  TO  ROME  IN  1849 


253 


253] 

The  President  [wrote  Falloux]  always  reserved  in  his  atti¬ 
tude,  always  cautious  in  his  language,  particularly  towards 
me,  whom  he  wished  to  convince  that  his  sympathy  for  Pius 
IX  still  continued,  now  showed  some  depression.  It  was  easy 
to  realize  that  an  ardent  struggle  was  going  on  in  his  heart 
between  the  earliest  sentiments  of  his  youth  and  the  opposite 
engagements  that  his  accession  to  the  head  of  a  Catholic 
nation  imposed  on  him.  ‘£  Ah,  M.  Mole,  What  a  mess  you 
have  landed  me  in !  ”  he  said  one  day,  and  Mole  repeated  the 
remark  to  me.1 

Acting  on  the  impulse  of  this  feeling,  offended  that  the 
dignity  of  France  should  be  injured  by  the  Roman  court 
and  his  name  calumniated,  he  wrote  a  confidential  letter  to 
Colonel  Edgar  Ney,  which  was  a  protest  against  the  con¬ 
duct  of  Rome  and  Gaeta.  This  letter  was  to  be  shown  to 
General  Rostolan,  the  officer  chosen  to  supersede  General 
Oudinot,  who  was  recalled  on  the  4th  of  August,  1849. 

The  Republic  of  France  [the  letter  ran]  did  not  send  an 
army  to  Rome  to  trample  on  Italian  liberty,  but,  on  the  con¬ 
trary,  to  regulate  it,  to  preserve  it  from  its  own  excesses,  and 
to  give  it  a  solid  basis,  by  restoring  to  his  throne  the  prince 
who  had  put  himself  so  boldly  at  the  head  of  all  useful  re-1 
forms. 

It  grieves  me  to  hear  that  the  benevolent  intentions  of  the 
Holy  Father,  and  our  endeavors,  have  been  frustrated  by  hos¬ 
tile  passions  and  influences.  It  is  evidently  desired  to  base  the 
return  of  the  Pope  on  proscription  and  tyranny.  Now,  you 
will  say  to  General  Rostolan  from  me,  that  he  must  not 
permit  any  act  contrary  to  the  nature  of  our  intervention  to 
be  committed  under  the  shadow  of  the  tricolored  flag. 

It  is  thus  I  epitomize  the  temporal  government  of  the  Pope : 
a  general  armistice ;  the  secularization  of  the  administration ; 
the  Code  of  Napoleon ;  and  a  liberal  government. 

1  Falloux,  Memoirs ,  vol.  i,  pp.  435-436. 


254  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [254 

When  I  read  the  Manifesto  of  the  three  Cardinals,  I  con¬ 
sidered  it  a  personal  affront  that  they  did  not  even  mention 
the  name  of  France,  or  the  sufferings  of  our  brave  soldiers. 
Any  insult  shown  to  our  flag  or  our  uniform  goes  straight  to 
my  heart;  and  I  beg  you  to  make  it  known  that,  though  France 
does  not  sell  her  services,  she  at  least  requires  that  gratitude 
be  shown  for  her  sacrifices  and  self-abnegation.  When  our 
armies  made  the  circuit  of  Europe  they  left  everywhere,  as 
traces  of  their  passage,  the  destruction  of  feudal  abuses,  and 
the  germs  of  liberty.  It  shall  never  be  said  that,  in  1849,  a 
French  army  acted  in  an  opposite  manner,  and  produced  con¬ 
trary  results.  Request  the  General  to  offer  thanks  in  my  name 
to  the  whole  army  for  its  noble  conduct.  I  have  learnt  with 
regret  that  it  is  not  treated,  even  physically,  as  it  deserves. 
No  means  must  be  neglected  by  which  to  provide  for  the 
comforts  of  our  troops.1 

The  effect  of  this  letter  was  profound,  but  quite  different 
from  what  was  intended.  Falloux,  to  whom  it  had  been 
shown  before  it  was  despatched,  and  to  whom  a  promise 
was  given  that  it  would  be  withheld  from  the  press,  threat¬ 
ened  to  resign  when  it  was  published.2 

“  M.  le  President  ”  [said  he]  “  You  have  just  given  me 
my  dismissal,  and  I  must  add  that  I  should  thank  you  for  it, 
if  I  did  not  leave  you  full  of  anxiety  for  very  serious  interests. 

“  Leave  me,”  he  said  with  an  air  of  great  astonishment, 
"  Why?” 

“  You  have  published  what  ought  to  have  been  kept  secret. 

“  Do  you  think  that  the  publication  of  my  letter  will  entail 
a  change  of  policy?  I  do  not  look  upon  it  in  that  way.  It 
is  only  a  legitimate  retaliation  upon  Cardinal  Della  Genga 
and  his  colleagues.  But  that  change  does  not  effect  the  Pope, 
and  cannot  in  any  way  change  the  policy  which  I  have  been 
pleased  to  follow  with  you  for  the  last  year. 

1  Farini,  op.  cit.,  vol.  iv,  pp.  281-282. 

’Falloux,  Memoirs,  vol.  i,  p.  449. 


THE  EXPEDITION  TO  ROME  IN  1849 


255 


255] 

“  Such  may  be  your  intention,  M.  le  President,  since  you 
do  me  the  honor  of  telling  me  so ;  but  it  is  no  longer  in 
your  power  to  arrest  the  fatal  impulse  you  have  raised  in 
France  and  Italy.1 

“  I  will  tell  you  the  strict  truth,  M.  de  Falloux,  and  you  will 
see  that  you  exaggerate  the  importance  of  the  incident.  I 
wished  to  keep  my  promise  to  you  and  let  my  letter  do  its 
work  in  silence,  when  an  English  despatch,  intercepted  by  the 
police  was  placed  before  me.  .  .  .  This  despatch  represented 
me  to  the  English  cabinet  as  the  plaything  of  the  Austrians, 
and  it  overwhelmed  me  with  stinging  sarcasms,  causing  me  an 
irritation  to  which  I  yielded  without  reflection.  I  sent  orders 
to  General  Rostolan  to  make  known  the  contents  of  my  letter 
to  the  French  army  and  to  Rome.  The  General  refused  to 
obey  this  order,  objecting  that  the  letter  was  not  counter¬ 
signed  by  a  minister,  and  that  it  would  produce  a  dangerous 
ebullition  in  Italy.  The  Ministry  still  hesitated  to  support 
me  against  general  Rostolan,  when  my  letter  appeared  almost 

1  Something  of  the  effect  of  Louis  Napoleon’s  letter  may  be  gathered 
from  the  following  letter  of  Cardinal  Antonelli  to  the  governors  of  the 
provinces  of  the  States  of  the  Church :  “A  letter  which  assumes  to  be 
written  by  the  President  of  the  French  Republic  to  Lt.-Col.  Ney  in 
Rome  has  given  increased  audacity  to  the  band  of  libertines,  the  sworn 
enemies  of  the  Pontifical  Government;  and  rumors  are  everywhere 
spread  about,  that  it  is  intended  to  impose  burdensome  conditions  on  the 
Holy  See.  The  anarchical  party,  in  consequence  of  these  expectations, 
displays  an  insulting  attitude,  as  it  believes  and  hopes  to  recover  itself 
from  the  discomfiture  it  has  undergone.  But  this  letter  has  not  any 
official  character,  being  merely  the  product  of  private  correspondence.  I 
will  also  add,  that  even  by  the  French  authorities  in  Rome  it  is  viewed 
with  displeasure. 

“  The  Holy  Father  is  seriously  occupying  himself  about  giving  to 
his  subjects  such  reforms  as  he  believes  useful  to  their  true  and  solid 
good ;  nor  has  any  power  imposed  laws  upon  him  in  reference  to  this, 
he  aiming  to  attain  so  important  an  end  without  betraying  the  duties 
of  his  own  conscience. 

“  Profit  by  this  intimation  to  contradict  the  falsehood  promulgated 
to  the  prejudice  of  public  order,  and  satisfy  everyone  that  it  is  the 
interest  of  ail  the  powers  to  sustain  the  liberty  and  independence  of  the 
Supreme  Pontiff,  for  the  peace  of  Europe.  ...”  Arthur,  Wm.,  Italy 
in  Transition  (London,  i860),  pp.  392  et  seq.,  document  I. 


256  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [256 

integrally  in  the  Moniteur  To  scan.  Your  colleagues  then  no 
longer  saw  any  objection  to  its  insertion  in  the  Moniteur,  and 
it  appeared  there.  It  was  a  thoroughly  personal  satisfaction 
to  myself,  the  effect  of  which  I  had  scarcely  calculated;  and 
I  own  this  to  you  in  all  sincerity,  it  ought  not  to  have  and  it 
will  not  have,  you  may  be  sure,  any  external  influence  over 
the  whole  tenor  of  our  political  conduct. 

“  This  confidence  certainly  modifies  my  private  opinion  of 
the  fact  in  itself  [replied  Falloux]  but  the  public  cannot 
be  expected  to  know  this,  and  I  certainly  cannot  remain  the 
responsible  editor  of  a  document  of  which  my  colleagues  have 
accepted  the  responsibility  without  me. 

“  You  are  mistaken,  M.  de  Falloux,  the  public  must  know 
the  truth,  I  do  not  wish  to  conceal  it  in  any  way.” 

He  at  once  seated  himself  at  his  writing  table,  wrote  a  few 
lines  rapidly,  and  held  the  paper  to  me,  saying.  “  Here,  M.  de 
Falloux,  will  that  satisfy  wou?”  It  was  a  disavowal  of  the 
letter  in  the  most  categorical  terms.1 

But  Falloux  to  save  the  dignity  of  the  President  and  of 
the  other  members  of  the  cabinet  refused  to  accept  such  a 
complete  disavowal.  He  promised  to  be  satisfied  with  the 
publication  in  the  Moniteur  of  a  statement  denying  that  he 
had  authorized  the  President’s  letter  and  affirming  that  the 
communication  of  the  said  letter  was  “  purely  official  and 
excluded  all  idea  of  publication.”  “  ‘  You  may  feel  easy 
about  it  ’  ”,  said  Louis  Napoleon,  “  affectionately  clasping 
both  my  hands.”  2 

It  is  thus  easy  to  see  how  far  Louis  Napoleon  was  will¬ 
ing  to  go  to  avoid  losing  the  support  of  the  Catholic  Party, 
for  which  Falloux’s  presence  in  the  ministry  was  felt  to  be 
a  pledge.3 

1  Falloux,  op.  cit.,  vol.  i,  pp.  444-446. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  447. 

*The  question  arises,  was  Louis  Napoleon  practising  duplicity  or 
humility  for  the  sake  of  satisfying  Falloux?  The  dissatisfaction  that 


THE  EXPEDITION  TO  ROME  IN  1849 


25  7l 


257 


After  this  interview  with  the  President  and  the  satisfac¬ 
tion  that  he  gave  him,  Falloux  endeavored  to  remove  as 
much  as  possible  the  ill-effects  of  the  letter  to  Colonel  Ney,1 
especially  by  attempting  to  soothe  the  injured  susceptibili¬ 
ties  of  the  Papal  Court.2  The  French  ambassadors  also  did 
their  utmost  to  conciliate  the  Court  at  Gaeta,  alleging  that 
the  “  Parisian  government  would  not  act  as  harshly  as  the 
President’s  letter  implied.”  8 

Notwithstanding  the  fact  that  the  irritation  at  Gaeta  was 
allayed  somewhat,4  the  effect  of  the  letter,  according  to  Fal¬ 
loux,  was  “  disastrous 


Instead  of  going  to  Castle-Gondolfo,  near  Rome,  as  we  had 
reason  to  hope  that  he  would,  Pius  IX  was  anxious  to  place 
a  still  greater  distance  between  himself  and  the  French  army. 
The  king  of  Naples  offered  the  Palace  of  Portici.  Cardinal 
Antonelli,  a  few  prelates  of  the  Pontifical  house,  and  some 

he  felt  at  the  little  regard  that  was  paid  to  his  letter,  either  by  his 
ministry  or  by  the  Assembly,  seems  to  lead  to  the  former  rather  than 
to  the  latter  conclusion.  Moreover  the  whole  character  of  Louis 
Napoleon  points  in  the  same  direction.  “This  incident  once  over,” 
said  Falloux,  “  I  asked  myself — I  ask  myself  still — which  of  the  Presi¬ 
dent’s  two  assurances  had  been  the  true  one.  If,  while  promising  me 
that  he  would  keep  the  letter  secret,  he  had  already  resolved  to  publish 
it,  what  advantage  could  he  expect  to  gain  from  a  duplicity  of  forty- 
eight  hours,  and  how  could  he  spontaneously  prepare  for  himself  the 
situation  in  which  the  inevitable  return  from  Neris  (whither  Falloux 
had  gone  for  his  health  and  where  he  was  staying  when  the  President’s 
letter  appeared)  would  certainly  place  him?  If,  on  the  other  hand, 
he  had  only  yielded,  in  publishing  his  letter,  to  a  passing  feeling  of  ill- 
temper,  how  would  this  letter  affect  the  program  of  his  personal  policy? 
In  this  hypothesis  it  would  have  to  be  admitted  that  duplicity  cost 
him  very  little,  and  that  he  had  not  that  strong  repugnance  towards 
it  which  honest  men  feel  for  this  moral  dishonesty.”  Memoirs,  vol. 
i,  pp.  449-450. 

1  Falloux,  op.  cit.,  vol.  i,  p.  455. 

’Farini,  op.  cit.,  vol.  iv,  pp.  287-288.  .  . 

3  Ibid.,  p.  287.  *  / 


258  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [258 

members  of  the  diplomatic  corps  vied  with  each  other  in  re¬ 
peating  that  the  Pope  would  take  refuge  in  America  .  .  .  . 
sooner  than  allow  there  to  be  any  doubt  as  to  his  independence.1 

Piius  IX,  by  'thus  removing  himself  further  from  the  States 
of  the  Church,  gave  the  French  to  understand  that  he 
would  not  return  to  Rome  until  he  had  received  full 
guarantee  that  his  rule  would  be  untrammeled  by  any  re¬ 
strictions  that  they  might  impose.2 

Nevertheless  on  the  12th  of  September  Pius  IX  issued 
his  Motu  Proprio ,  which  outlined  the  institutions  that  he 
was  prepared  to  establish  in  the  States  of  the  Church.  It 
promised  the  creation  of  Provincial  Councils,  which  should 
be  appointed  by  the  Pope  to  supervise  matters  of  local  in¬ 
terest  in  each  province;  a  Council  of  State,  a  consultative 
body,  which  should  give  its  opinion  on  all  bills  before  they 
were  submitted  for  the  sanction  of  the  sovereign;  a  Council 
of  State  for  Finance,  another  consultative  body,  the  mem¬ 
bers  of  which  should  be  selected  from  lists  submitted  by 
the  Provincial  Councils,  and  the  purpose  of  which  was  to 
examine  expenditures,  imposition  of  taxes,  etc;  judicial  re¬ 
forms  which  were  undefined;  and  finally  an  amnesty  with 
certain  exceptions. 

As  a  basis  of  government  the  Motu  Proprio  was  much 
less  liberal  than  the  Fundamental  Statute  which  Pius  IX 
granted  on  the  14th  of  March,  1848;  and  it  fell  far  short 
of  the  demands  of  the  French  government,  either  as  ex¬ 
pressed  by  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs,  or  by  Louis 
Napoleon’s  letter  to  Edgar  Ney.  “  The  Motu  Proprio  is 
derisory;  the  amnesty  is  cruel”,  was  the  impression  that 
it  created.3 

1  Falloux,  op.  cit.,  vol.  iv,  p.  451. 

*Farini,  op.  cit.,  vol.  iv,  p.  288. 

8Gaillard,  op.  cit.,  p.  331. 


THE  EXPEDITION  TO  ROME  IN  1849 


259 


259] 

The  question  that  now  arose  was  whether  the  Papal  gov¬ 
ernment  should  be  compelled  to  make  its  institutions  con¬ 
form  to  the  President’s  letter  or  whether  the  French  gov¬ 
ernment  should  profess  itself  satisfied  with  the  Motu  Pro- 
prio.  The  decision  rested  with  the  Legislative  Assembly 
inasmuch  as  further  credits  for  the  Roman  Expedition  re¬ 
mained  to  be  voted. 

In  the  Assembly  Arnaud  [de  I’Ariege],  whom  Falloux 
called  a  “  sincere  but  inconsistent  Catholic  ”,  raised  the  ques¬ 
tion  as  to  whether  the  temporal  power  was  necessary  to  en¬ 
able  the  Papacy  to  fulfil  its  mission.  Granted  that  the  is¬ 
sue  was  a  religious  one,  was  it  necessary  to  maintain  that 
power  to  enable  the  Church  to  stand? 

Do  you  think  that  the  Church  is  unable  to  accomplish  its 
mission,  its  destiny  [he  asked]  without  condemning  a  people 
to  eternal  servitude?  .  .  .  For  my  part,  I  who  am  a  partizan 
at  once  of  the  principle  of  national  sovereignty  and  of  Cath¬ 
olicism,  I  am  convinced  that  Catholicism  has  no  need  of  the 
violation  of  any  right  whatsoever,  I  am  convinced  that  whether 
in  the  past,  in  the  present  or  in  the  future  it  has  always,  and 
shall  always  reconcile  itself  in  its  rights,  in  its  interests  and 
in  its  manifestations  with  all  the  rights  of  peoples.  That  is 
my  conviction. 

Moreover  he  believed  that  the  time  had  come  for  the  separa¬ 
tion  of  the  temporal  and  the  spiritual,  and  that  such  separa¬ 
tion  would  no  longer  cause  any  inconvenience  to  the  Church. 

The  Papacy  can  remain  independent  without  possessing  this 
material  seat  [he  declared].  It  is  able  to  do  so,  for  .  .  .  . 
now,  in  the  world,  do  you  not  see  that  the  sentiment  of  right 
and  of  justice  has  replaced  that  of  brute  force?  .  .  .  not  only 
is  this  union  unnecessary,  but  it  will  henceforth  be  disastrous 
for  the  influence  of  the  Church.  ...  I  believe  the  temporal 
sovereignty  of  the  Pope  is  going  to  be  reestablished  in  all  its 


26o  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [260 

absolutism,  and  that  thus  you  will  have  been  reduced  to  the 
sorry  role  of  having  been  the  accomplices  of  absolutism  [was 
the  accusation  that  he  hurled  against  the  government].  Thus 
without  avail  you  have  compromised  all :  democracy  which  you 
represent,  religion  which  you  wish  to  save,  society  which  you 
pretend  to  consolidate.1 

Others  brought  a  like  accusation  against  the  govern¬ 
ment. 

“  You  make  Italian  Nationality  impossible  ”,  said  Edgar 
Quinet.  “  Machiavelli  called  the  temporal  power  of  the 
Pope  the  sword  in  the  wound  of  Italy.  By  a  heroic  effort 
this  people  has  cast  the  sword  from  its  breast.  When 
you  plunge  it  in  again,  you  prevent  the  wound  from  closing 
up.” 

But  the  majority  thought  otherwise. 

I  am  convinced  [said  de  Tocqueville]  that  ....  neither 
to-day  ....  nor  in  the  near  future,  is  there  any  other  means 
of  making  the  Sovereign  Pontiff  independent,  than  to  leave 
him  a  temporal  power.  With  the  opposite  system  you  will 
always  come  to  this,  that,  directly  or  indirectly,  a  foreign 
power  will  exercise  on  the  will  of  the  Holy  Father  a  pressure 
of  which  France  in  particular,  and  the  Catholic  world  in 
general,  may  have  cause  to  lament.  For  my  part,  therefore, 
I  have  not  hesitated  to  think,  and  I  have  not  delayed  one 
moment  in  saying,  that  one  of  the  primary  objects  of  our  ex¬ 
pedition  in  Italy  ought  to  be  to  render  the  Pope  his  independ¬ 
ence,  which,  according  to  me,  can  be  restored  to  him  only 
with  the  temporal  power. 

But  de  Tocqueville  added: 

I  am  convinced  that  if  the  Holy  See  does  not  bring  consider¬ 
able  reforms  into  ....  the  States  of  the  Church,  into  their 
laws,  into  their  judicial  and  administrative  practice,  if  there 


1  Journal  des  debats,  session  of  August  6,  1849. 


26i]  THE  EXPEDITION  TO  ROME  IN  1849  26l 

are  not  liberal  institutions  consistent  with  the  present  condi¬ 
tions  of  peoples,  I  am  convinced  I  say,  that  no  matter  what 
force  may  extend  itself  from  the  ends  of  Europe  to  sustain 
it,  this  power  will  soon  be  in  grave  peril.1 

When  (the  Assembly  was  asked  for  further  credits  for  the 
Roman  Expedition,  it  appointed  a  parliamentary  committee 
to  investigate  the  matter,  of  which  Thiers  was  reporter. 
Wiiithin  this*  committee  the  question  arose  of  Louis  Napo¬ 
leon’s  letter;  but  it  was  decided  not  to  mention  it. 

To  adopt  it  [Thiers  told  Senior]  was  impossible,  to  criticize  it 
would  have  been  indecent.  So  we  decided  not  to  allude  to  it,  at 
least  expressly;  but  a  passage  in  which  we  declared  that  we 
could  do  no  violence  to  the  Holy  Father,  that  we  had  restored 
him  to  full  and  complete  liberty  as  to  the  use  which  he  might 
make  of  it,  answered  it  implicitly.2 

France,  said  Thiers  in  his  report  to  the  Assembly,  could 
not  compel  Pius  IX  to  such  and  such  a  line  of  conduct;  but 
it  had  the  right  to  supplicate  him  to  make  concessions. 
Pius  IX  understood  this  perfectly,  he  declared,  and  a  first 
important  act  of  his  free  unhampered  will  is  the  Motu 
Proprio. 

Your  committee  has  examined  carefully  this  act — not  that  it 
believes  that  France  has  the  right  to  decide  as  to  the  merit  of 
the  institutions  of  foreign  peoples  [loud  interruption  from  the 
extreme  left].  But,  by  a  very  large  majority,  your  com¬ 
mittee  declares  that  it  sees  in  the  Motu  Proprio  a  very  con¬ 
siderable  preliminary  advantage,  which  an  unjust  prejudice 
alone  can  fail  to  appreciate. 

It  is  true,  he  acknowledged,  that  the  bodies  that  it  called 
for  were  consultative  rather  than  deliberative,  but  in  view 

1  Journal  des  debats,  session  of  August  6,  1849. 

2  Conversations  with  Thiers,  vol.  i,  p.  67. 


262  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [262 

of  the  fact  that  political  agitations  had  been  so  extreme  at 
Rome,  this  was  rather  an  advantage  than  otherwise. 

The  important  act  which  one  calls  the  Motu  Proprio  [con¬ 
cluded  Thiers]  presupposes  a  body  of  laws  which  should  re¬ 
form  the  civil  legislation,  assure  the  equity  of  courts,  bring 
about  a  just  distribution  of  public  functions  amongst  the  dif¬ 
ferent  classes  of  citizens,  procure,  in  a  word,  for  the  Romans 
the  advantages  of  a  government  sagely  liberal.  These  laws 
are  announced,  and  the  word  of  Pius  IX  suffices  to  remove  all 
doubts.  [Voice  at  Left:  belle  garantie!].1 

“  Constitutional  government  is  not  in  the  Motu  Proprio 
said  Thuriot  de  la  Rosiere;  “  what  is  called  political  liberty 
properly  speaking  is  not  there.”  But  the  Roman  people 
could  not  expect  such  things,  he  argued.  It  was  a  sacrifice 
that  they  were  asked  to  make  for  Catholicism  as  a  whole, 
and  he  compared  the  situation  of  the  Roman  States  within 
Catholicism  with  the  District  of  Columbia  in  the  United 
States.  “  The  sovereignty  of  the  Catholic  peoples,  in  this 
case,  suppresses  the  sovereignty  of  the  Roman  people.”  2 

To  Victor  Hugo  the  question  at  issue  was  the  choice  be¬ 
tween  the  letter  of  the  President  and  the  Motu  Proprio  of 
the  Pope. 

If  you  sanction  the  letter,  you  condemn  the  Motu  Proprio ;  if 
you  accept  the  Motu  Proprio ,  you  disavow  the  letter.  .  .  . 
The  Motu  Proprio  and  the  amnesty  ....  have  aroused  the 
indignation  of  the  Roman  people  [he  affirmed.]  At  the 
present  time  a  profound  agitation  disturbs  Rome,  and  to¬ 
morrow,  if  we  should  quit  Rome,  immediately  the  gate  closed 
behind  the  last  of  our  soldiers,  do  you  know  what  would  hap¬ 
pen?  A  new  revolution  would  burst  forth.3 

1  Journal  des  debats,  session  of  October  13,  1849. 

2  Ibid.,  session  of  October  18. 

3  Ibid. 


THE  EXPEDITION  TO  ROME  IN  1849 


263] 


“  Gentlemen  ”,  said  Montalembert,  mounting  the  tribune 
amid  a  thunder  of  applause  from  the  left  that  greeted  the 
conclusion  of  Victor  Hugo’s  speech,  “  Gentlemen,  the  dis¬ 
course  which  you  have  just  heard  has  already  received,  in 
the  applause  that  it  has  called  forth,  the  chastisement  it  de¬ 
served.”  Can  France  employ  violence  against  the  Holy 
Father,  he  asked? 


Allow  me  to  employ  a  homely  figure  of  speech.  When  a  man 
is  condemned  to  struggle  against  a  woman,  if  she  is  not  the 
last  of  creatures,  she  can  defy  him  with  impunity.  She  says 
to  him :  “  Strike,  but  you  will  dishonor  yourself  and  you  will 
not  conquer  me.”  Ah !  well,  the  Church  is  not  a  woman. 
She  is  much  more  than  a  woman :  she  is  a  mother,  the  mother 
of  Europe,  the  mother  of  modern  society,  the  mother  of 
modern  humanity!  It  is  in  vain  that  one  is  an  unnatural,  a 
rebellious,  an  ungrateful  son,  for  one  always  remains  a  son, 
and  there  comes  a  moment  in  this  parricidal  strife  against  the 
Church,  when  this  struggle  becomes  unbearable  to  the  human 
race  and  when  the  one  who  has  begun  it  falls  overwhelmed  or 
annihilated,  either  through  defeat  or  through  the  unani¬ 
mous  reprobation  of  humanity.  [Applause]  Imagine,  Gentle¬ 
men  Pius  IX  appealing  to  Europe,  appealing  to  posterity,  ap¬ 
pealing  to  God  against  the  violence  and  the  constraint  of 
France,  France  who  has  saved  him,  and  who  would  thus  add 
the  most  ridiculous  of  inconsistencies  to  a  crime,  which,  since 
the  dawn  of  history,  has  never  brought  any  one  happiness. 
[Great  applause].1 

.  .  .  .  M.  de  Montalembert  says  to  us  [said  Emmanuel 
Arago]  :  “  to  attack  the  Church  is  to  attack  helplessness,  is  to 
attack  a  woman,  and  when  one  attacks  a  woman,  one  dishonors 
oneself ;  but  the  Church  is  more  than  a  woman,  it  is  a 
mother !  ”  And  liberty,  Sir.  ...  I  reply :  liberty  is  our 
mother;  we  owe  her  homage.  .  .  .  Say  to  the  Roman  people: 

1  Session  of  October  18,  1849.  “  Montalembert/’  said  de  Tocqueville, 
“  was  splendid ;  nothing  could  be  finer  as  a  piece  of  oratory.”  Senior, 
de  Tocqueville,  vol.  i,  p.  68. 


264  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [264 

“  In  your  sovereign  liberty,  choose,  and  we  are  here  to  assure 
the  liberty  of  your  choice;  sovereign  as  we  are,  choose  your 
government,  recall  the  Pope  if  you  wish,  proclaim  yourselves 
a  Republic  if  that  suits  you;  choose,  we  have  delivered  you 
from  those  who  oppress  you.”  If  you  do  not  do  that,  you 
deny  every  right,  you  will  take  away  forever  every  illusion 
from  those  who  were  able  to  believe  that  you  had  not  com¬ 
pletely  forgotten  your  liberal  life.1 

It  has  been  said  [affirmed  Odilon  Barrot  in  his  turn]' 
there  are  two  documents  which  are  opposed  to  each  other,  the 
letter  and  the  Motu  Proprio  :  choose  between  them.  The  reply 
is  very  simple  ....  we  take  the  letter  and  the  Motu  Propria 
at  once:  the  letter  as  expression  of  the  end  that  we  wish  to 
attain,  the  Motu  Proprio  as  a  concession  already  acquired. 
The  Motu  Proprio  does  not  realize,  who  denies  it?  all  that  is 
contained  in  the  letter,  and  it  is  for  that  reason  that  we  are 
continuing  to  negotiate  and  to  use  our  influence  with  the  Holy 
Father  to  obtain  it.  .  .  .  To  those  who  pretend  to  find  in  the 
letter  of  the  President  of  the  Republic  threats  of  violence,  I 
am  authorized  to  make  a  flat  denial.2 

After  the  interpretations  that  the  Ministry  has  given  of 
the  letter  of  the  President  of  the  Republic  [said  Emile  Bar¬ 
rault]  it  is  evident  that  the  ministry,  that  the  executive  power 
abandons  the  position  of  mediator,  and  passes  with  arms  and 
baggage,  and  even  with  the  letter  of  the  President,  into  the 
camp  of  the  right.3 

The  Assembly  then  voted  the  credits  for  the  Roman  Ex¬ 
pedition  by  469  votes  against  180;  which  meant  that  it  sanc¬ 
tioned  the  restoration  of  Pius  IX  on  the  basis  of  the  Motu 
Proprio ,  and  that  the  majority  were  willing,  as  Thiers  said, 
to  trust  Pius  IX. 

1  Session  of  October  18,  1849. 

7  Ibid. 

3  Ibid. 


THE  EXPEDITION  TO  ROME  IN  IS49 


265] 


But  France  having  sent  an  army  into  the  States  of  the 
Church  to  restore,  was  obliged  to  keep  a  f  orce  there  1  to  main¬ 
tain  the  temporal  power,  until  she  was  compelled  to  with¬ 
draw  by  the  outbreak  of  the  Franco-Prussian  war  in  1870, 
when  the  last  remnant  of  the  temporal  power  was  over¬ 
thrown  by  the  troops  of  Victor  Emmanuel  in  the  name  of 
a  united  Italy. 


1  With  the  exception  of  a  few  months  in  1866.  Cf.  infra ,  p.  343. 


CHAPTER  VII 


The  Falloux  Law 

One  of  the  problems  that  confronted  the  Republic,  in 
which  the  Catholics  were  vitally  interested,  was  the  ques¬ 
tion  of  education.  The  University,  which  Napoleon  had 
created  to  control  instruction,  had  always  been  offensive  to 
Catholics,  more  especially  when  the  state  had  enforced  its 
monopoly.  It  had  placed  restrictions  on  the  opening  of 
private  schools,  and  had  supervised  their  conduct.  It  de¬ 
manded  certain  qualifications  of  instructors  before  they 
could  teach,  even  in  a  private  school.  And  frequently  these 
qualifications  could  be  obtained  only  in  an  institution  of  the 
state.  This  meant  that  in  many  cases  the  clergy  and  reli¬ 
gious  orders  were  ruled  out  of  education.  Then  the  Uni¬ 
versity  required  all  candidates  for  the  baccalaureate 
to  attend  certain  classes  in  the  schools  which  it  controlled; 
and  it  alone  possessed  the  right  to  confer  degrees.  At  the 
close  of  the  Restoration  the  liberal  Catholics  had  adopted 
the  watchword  of  “  liberty  of  instruction  ”,  and  through¬ 
out  the  Monarchy  of  July  they  were  endeavoring  to-  attain 
the  ideal  for  which  it  stood.  The  law  of  1833,  it  is  true, 
had  given  them  satisfaction  as  far  as  primary  instruction 
was  concerned;  but  the  fear  of  the  Jesuits  and  of  a  “  clerical 
domination  ”  had  prevented  a  bourgeoisie ,  tainted  with 
eighteenth-century  rationalism,  from  conceding  this  liberty 
in  secondary  instruction.  But  the  Republic  meant  liberty, 

and  it  led  the  Catholics  to  expect  liberty  of  instruction. 

266  [266 


THE  FALLOUX  LAW 


267] 


The  preparation  of  the  Falloux  Law  was  the  achievement 
of  this  liberty. 

Amongst  the  members  of  the  provisional  government 
brought  to  power  by  the  fall  of  Louis-Philippe  was  Hip- 
poly  te  Carnot  to  whom  was  given  the  portfolio  of  Public 
Instruction  and  Worship.  The  son  of  a  regicide  of  1793, 
a  republican  by  conviction  as  well  as  by  inheritance,  and  a 
disciple  of  the  school  of  Saint-Simon,1  Carnot  sought  to 
make  education  serve  the  cause  of  the  Republic.2  While 
Ledru-Rollin  and  his  following  endeavored  to  create  re¬ 
publicans  by  means  of  “  intimidation  ”,  Carnot,  who  be¬ 
longed  to  the  moderate  party,  believed  that  end  could  best 
be  attained  by  means  of  education.3 4  Accordingly  he  in¬ 
vited  the  cure  and  the  school-master  to  exercise  their 
political  rights  and  to  instruct  the  people  how  they  should 
use  their  newly-won  privileges.14  “  Beside  your  duties  to¬ 
wards  the  children  ”,  he  wrote  to  the  school-masters, 
“  events  impose  on  you  an  urgent  duty,  that  of  preparing 
adults  for  the  political  life  which  is  open  to  them:  it  be¬ 
hooves  you  to  make  them  understand  the  true  meaning  of 
the  new  Republic.”  5  Moreover  Carnot  was  instrumental 
in  the  production  of  republican  manuals,  the  purpose  of 
which  was  to  explain  the  nature  of  the  new  form  of  gov¬ 
ernment  and  to  clarify  citizens  on  their  duties  and  their 
rights.  Some  of  these  manuals  were  conservative  and 
sought  to  reassure  the  peasants  against  the  social  conse¬ 
quences  of  the  revolution;  some  were  religious  and  appealed 

1  Weill  G.,  L’Fcole  saint-simonienne  (Paris,  1896),  p.  218  et  seq.;  His- 
toire  du  parti  republicain  en  France  (Paris,  1900),  pp.  10,  19. 

2  Quentin-Bauchart,  op.  cit.,  p.  106  and  note. 

3  Carnot,  H.,  Le  Ministere  de  Vinstruction  pnblique  et  des  cultes  24 
fevrier  d  juillet,  1848  (Paris,  1848),  pp.  28-30. 

4  Ibid.,  p.  23. 

6  Ibid. 


268  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [268 

to  the  Pope  to  bless  the  Republic;  while  others  proclaimed 
the  social  gospel.1 2 

But  Carnot’s  educational  program  was  more  comprehen¬ 
sive  than  merely  to  prepare  the  citizens  of  the  Republic 
for  an  election.  He  beheld  in  education  at  once  a  duty  of 
the  state  towards  its  citizens  and  of  its  citizens  towards  the 
state.1  While  rejecting  the  “  dangerous  and  erroneous  ” 
ideas  of  the  socialists  which  made  “  man  a  slave  of  the 
state  ”,  he  nevertheless  desired  to  put  education  in  the  hands 
of  the  state.  “  At  the  risk  of  being  called  socialists  ”,  he 
said,  .  .  .  we  desire  that  the  state  should  act  as  the 
father  of  a  family  towards  all  its  children;  that  it  should 
give  them  education  and  assistance;  and  we  urge  our  fel¬ 
low  citizens  not  to  spare  any  sacrifice  to  attain  this  end.”  3 
“  Let  us  form  new  citizens  for  new  institutions  ”  was  the 
appeal  which  he  issued  to  the  Council  of  the  University.4 
To  this  end  Carnot  devoted  himself  to  the  preparation  of 
an  educational  law  that  should  embody  his  ideas.  Three 
great  principles  guided  him  in  working  out  his  proposal. 
Education,  “  in  order  to  efface  every  distinction  in  the 
schools  between  the  child  of  the  rich  and  the  child  of  the 
poor  ”,  should  be  gratuitous.  Then  education  should  be 
obligatory.  Where  universal  suffrage  prevailed  instruction 
became  a  civic  duty.  “  The  freedom  of  instruction  is  not 
the  freedom  of  ignorance,  ”  he  declared.  And  finally 
Carnot  believed  in  the  liberty  of  all  to  teach.  Education 
should  indeed  be  given  and  supported  by  the  state;  but  this 
should  not  preclude  the  right  of  either  individuals  or  socie¬ 
ties  to  open  schools.  Thus  even  the  Jesuits  would  be  al- 

1  Dreyfus,  F.,  L’ecole  en  1848  (Paris,  1908),  p.  11. 

2  Carnot,  op.  cit.,  p.  8. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  7. 

4  Ibid.,  pp.  1 1 -12. 


269]  THE  PALLOUX  LAW  269 

lowed  to  teach.1  The  aim  of  Carnot  was  to  create  a  national 
education  which  should  promote  national  unity.  “  If  my 
anxiety  ”,  he  said,  “  with  regard  to  the  clergy  was  to  de¬ 
stroy  amongst  them  the  'spirit  of  corporation,  it  was  the 
same  with  regard  to  the  University,  which  also  formed  a 
little  church.  By  attaching  both  bodies  more  closely  to  the 
national  unity  I  hoped  to  make  their  old  rivalries  cease.”  2 

Accordingly,  on  the  30th  of  June  Carnot  presented  his 
project  before  the  Constituent  Assembly.  Since  the  free 
will  of  the  citizens  should  henceforth  direct  the  destinies 
of  the  country,  the  safety  and  the  happiness  of  France  would 
in  future  depend  upon  the  proper  cultivation  of  that  will. 
The  purpose  of  primary  instruction  was  therefore  larger 
than  merely  to  give  children  some  notions  of  reading,  of 
writing  and  of  grammar :  it  should  aim  to  make  them  wor¬ 
thy  by  developing  at  once  the  man  and  the  citizen  of  the 
great  name  of  citizen  that  awaited  them.  While  calculated 
to  impart  as  much  knowledge  as  possible,  instruction  should 
also  tend  towards  moral  development,  and  more  especially 
towards  the  cultivation  of  the  idea  of  fraternity.  Educa¬ 
tion  thus  became  religious  as  well  as  intellectual.3  A  “  gen¬ 
eral  supervision  ”  by  the  state,  which  in  the  case  of  eccles¬ 
iastical  schools  should  be  performed  by  the  most  republican 
of  the  clergy,  was  the  only  restriction  placed  upon  liberty 
of  instruction.4  The  Assembly  then  appointed  a  com¬ 
mittee  of  fifteen  members  to  deal  with  the  project.5 

But  while  Carnot’s  proposal  for  primary  instruction  was 
being  intrusted  to  a  parliamentary  committee,  Carnot  him- 

1  Carnot,  op.  cit.,  pp.  11-12. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  45. 

3  Moniteur,  July  1,  1848. 

4  Carnot,  op.  cit.,  pp.  44-45.  .  * 

5  Michel,  H.,  La  Loi  Falloux  (Paris,  1906),  pp.  51-52. 


2^0  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [2yo 

self  was  attacked  in  the  Assembly  and  obliged  to  resign.1? 
After  the  June  days  terror  had  seized  upon  the  conserva¬ 
tive  members  of  the  Constituent  who  beheld  everywhere  the 
red  specter  of  socialism.2  In  the  session  of  the  5th  of 
July  Carnot  was  accused  of  being  an  accomplice  to  the 
propagation  of  socialistic  ideas  through  the  republican  man¬ 
uals  which  he  had  authorized.  The  manual  that  was  most 
severely  attacked  was  by  Charles  Renouvier,  a  philosopher, 
and  was  entitled  Manuel  Republicain  de  V Homme  et  du 
Citoyen.  It  was  accused  of  attacking  the  right  of  private 
property.  “  Does  there  ....  exist  any  means  of  prevent¬ 
ing  the  rich  from  being  idle  and  the  poor  from  being  de¬ 
voured  by  the  rich,,”  was  the  passage  that  awakened  critic¬ 
ism.  Carnot,  who  had  not  read  this  manual  before  he  had 
authorized  its  distribution,  defended  himself  and  the  book 
against  charges  which  were  unjust,  but  at  the  same  time  he 
felt  obliged  to  resign  his  portfolio.3 

Indeed  after  the  June  Days  it  was  the  fear  of  socialism 
that  largely  dictated  the  form  that  the  educational  law  was 
to  take.  Maxime  du  Camp  relates  that  Victor  Cousin  meet¬ 
ing  Charles  de  Remusat  on  the  Ouai  Voltaire  after  the 
Revolution  of  the  24th  of  February,  the  former,  “  that 
eclectic  philosopher  whom  no  event  'should  have  disturbed, 
raised  his  hands  to  heaven  and  exclaimed :  ‘  Let  us  run  and 
throw  ourselves  at  the  feet  of  the  bishops;  they  alone  are 

1  He  had  been  reappointed  minister  by  General  Cavaignac  when  the 
latter  assumed  power  after  the  June  days. 

3  Dreyfus,  op.  cit.,  p.  28. 

8  Moniteur,  July  6,  1848:  “  It  is  ...  .  owing  to  ignorance  or  wilful 
confusion  that  they  have  discovered,  in  some  publications  authorized  by 
my  ministry,  points  of  resemblance  with  the  doctrines  which  are  in 
question.  In  all  these  publications,  on  the  contrary,  and  my  convictions 
would  not  have  permitted  that  it  should  be  otherwise,  the  right  of  indi¬ 
vidual  property  and  the  sanctity  of  the  family  have  been  proclaimed 
without  ambiguity.”  Carnot,  op.  cit.,  p.  31. 


THE  FALLOUX  LAW 


271] 


271 


able  to  save  us  to-day.’  ”  1  The  incident  is  illustrative  of 
the  attitude  of  the  bourgeoisie  whom  the  social  revolution 
filled  with  terror.  This  fear  was  to  make  the  liberty  of 
instruction,  which  the  Catholics  desired,  at  once  more 
easy  and  more  difficult  of  attainment.  It  made  the  bour¬ 
geoisie  more  ready  to  give  the  Church  a  prominent  part  in 
education,  but  it  made  them  unwilling  to  forego  all  super¬ 
vision  on  the  part  of  the  state. 


To-day  [wrote  Thiers]  when  every  social  idea  is  perverted, 
and  when  some  desire  to  give  us  in  each  village  a  teacher  who 
will  be  a  phalansterian,  I  regard  the  cure  as  an  indispensable 
rectifier  of  the  ideas  of  the  people.  He  will  at  least  teach 
them  in  the  name  of  Christ  that  pain  is  a  necessity  in  every 
estate,  that  it  arises  from  the  nature  of  life,  and  that  when 
the  poor  have  the  fever,  it  is  not  the  rich  who  have  sent  it  to 
them.  ...  As  to  the  liberty  of  instruction,  I  am  changed 
.  .  .  .  not  by  a  revolution  in  my  convictions,  but  by  a  revolu¬ 
tion  in  the  social  state.  When  the  University  represented 
the  fine  and  prudent  French  bourgeoisie;  when  it  instructed 
our  children  after  the  methods  of  Rollin ;  when  it  gave  the 
preference  to  wholesome  and  ancient  classical  studies  over 
the  physical  and  altogether  material  studies  of  the  exponents 
of  professional  education,  oh!  then  I  desired  to  sacrifice  to 
it  the  liberties  of  instruction.  To-day  I  am  no  longer  of  this 
opinion,  and  why?  Because  nothing  is  as  it  was  then.  The 
University,  falling  into  the  hands  of  the  phalansterians,  pre¬ 
tends  to  teach  our  children  a  little  mathematics,  a  little  phy¬ 
sics,  a  little  natural  science  and  much  demagogy.  I  behold 
safety  only  in  the  liberty  of  instruction.  I  do  not  desire  that 
it  should  be  absolute  and  without  any  guarantee  for  the  public 
authority;  for  if  there  were  an  instruction  according  to 
Carnot,  and  more  than  that,  an  instruction  according  to  Blan- 
qui,  I  should  desire  at  least  to  prevent  the  latter.  But  in 
any  case,  I  repeat  that  the  instruction  of  the  clergy,  which 


1  Souvenirs  (Paris,  1876),  pp.  112-113. 


272  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [272 

for  many  reasons  I  did  not  like,  now  seems  to  me  better  than 
that  which  is  prepared  for  us  ....  I  direct  my  hatred  and 
the  strength  of  my  resistance  to-day  only  against  the  enemy. 
That  enemy  is  demagogism.  .  .  .1 

The  Catholic  papers  did  not  fail  to  insinuate  that  this 
plight  in  which  the  bourgeoisie  found  themselves  was,  in  a 
measure,  due  to  their  repeated  refusal 2  to  give  the  Church 
the  educational  rights  that  she  demanded.  If  they  take  the 
present  situation  into  consideration,  said  the  Ere  Nouvelle, 
they  will  perceive  that  their  interest  dictates  this  “  act  of 
justice  ”. 

If  the  moral  order  is  not  consolidated,  society  is  rushing  to¬ 
wards  a  fearful  cataclysm.  Who  does  not  feel  it?  Who 
does  not  say  it?  Do  you  not  behold  audacious  and  perverse 
doctrines  sapping  in  every  mind  the  bases  of  the  social  order? 
Do  you  not  know  that  there  are  some  thousands  of  arms  ready 
to  apply  these  subversive  doctrines?  Never  have  graver 
questions  been  raised  in  the  world!  Never  has  the  moral 
order  been  more  severely  shaken!  Where  is  the  remedy? 
You  answer,  in  the  salons,  in  the  political  assemblies,  even 
at  the  tribune:  it  is  only  in  the  resurrection  of  the  religious 
spirit,  in  the  awakening  of  the  Christian  consciousness.  Ah, 

1  kre  nouvelle,  June  23,  1848.  Letter  of  May  2,  1848.  Cf.  Univers, 
June  5,  1848:  “With  regard  to  the  Clergy,”  said  Thiers,  “I  believe  the 
situation  is  changed,  and  our  attitude  is  also  necessarily  changed.  Under 
the  overthrown  regime  I  feared  certain  influences  of  the  clergy;  to-day 
I  regard  religion  and  its  ministers  as  the  auxiliaries,  the  saviors,  per¬ 
haps,  of  the  social  order,  which  is  threatened.  I  am  resolved  to  defend 
the  Catholic  institutions  with  the  greatest  energy,  notably,  the  budget 
of  the  clergy.  Furthermore,  I  regard  liberty  of  instruction  as  useful, 
even  necessary  in  the  face  of  a  system  of  obligatory  demagogic  educa¬ 
tion.  It  would,  therefore,  be  folly  for  all  the  defenders  of  the  social 
order  ....  to  be  disunited  in  the  face  of  anarchy.  The  cure  of  the 
country  will  be  our  only  buttress  against  the  communist  and  demagogic 
schoolmaster  whom  it  is  proposed  to  send  us  in  every  village.  I  do  not 
say  this  from  complaisance  but  from  conviction.” 

*  Cf.  supra,  introduction. 


THE  FALLOUX  LAW 


273 


273] 

Well!  Be  consistent  with  yourselves!  If  you  wish  the  awak¬ 
ening  of  the  religious  consciousness,  put  religion  in  a  position 
where  it  will  be  able  to  develop  its  action  fully,  and  to  re¬ 
cover  its  legitimate  influence.1 

After  discussing  Proudhon  and  his  doctrines  the  Univers 
concluded :  “  Perhaps  now  the  committee  on  primary  in¬ 
struction  will  understand  that  it  will  be  of  advantage  to 
society  to  teach  the  catechism  a  little  more  and  a  little  better 
in  the  schools  of  the  people.'’  2 

The  question  of  liberty  of  instruction  was  debated  in  the 
Constituent  Assembly  in  September  during  the  discussion 
on  the  constitution,  and  Montalembert  supported  it  in  the 
interests  of  the  Church.  The  committee  on  the  constitution 
had  refused  to  recognize  this  liberty  as  a  natural  right  like 
that  of  association,  of  petition  and  of  the  press;  but  had 
put  it  in  the  category  of  rights  conferred  by  the  state.3 
Accordingly  the  committee  drafted  a  special  article  [art. 
IX]  which  declared:  “  Instruct  ion  is  free;  the  liberty  of  in¬ 
struction  is  exercised  under  the  guarantee  of  the  laws  and 
the  surveillance  of  the  state.  This  surveillance  is  extended 
to  every  establishment  of  education  and  instruction  without 
exception.”  Montalembert  proposed  that  article  IX  should 
be  dropped  out  of  the  constitution  and  that  liberty  of  in¬ 
struction  should  be  inserted  in  article  VIII  amongst  the 
natural  rights  of  man  under  the  Republic.4 

The  exercise  of  these  rights  [said  Montalembert]  has  for 
a  limit  only  the  rights  and  the  liberty  of  another  or  the  public 

1  fcre  nouvclle,  July  3,  1848. 

2  Univers,  August  1,  1848. 

3  Michel,  op.  cit.,  p.  62. 

4  Article  would  then  read:  “Citizens  have  the  right  to  associate,  to 
assemble  peaceably  and  without  arms,  to  petition,  to  teach  and  to  mani¬ 
fest  their  thoughts  by  way  of  the  press  or  otherwise.”  Michel,  op.  cit., 
p.  62;  Monitenr,  September  19,  1848. 


274  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [274 

security.  ...  We  no  longer  wish  the  words :  “  under  the 
guarantee  of  the  laws  ”,  which  article  IX  contains,  because 
....  it  is  not,  unfortunately,  a  question  of  laws  protective 
of  liberty,  but  of  preventative  and  restrictive  laws,  as  all 
those  have  been  which  were  presented  on  this  subject  dur¬ 
ing  the  regime  of  July.1 

I  maintain  [asserted  Montalembert]  that  society  is  ill 
....  that  the  society  of  which  we  form  a  part,  the  society 
which  is  our  mother,  is  threatened  by  an  ensemble  of  doc¬ 
trines  ....  which  are  very  ancient,  the  genealogy  of  which 
I  have  no  need  to  give,  but  which  have  at  their  disposal  to-day 
not  new  ideas,  but  new  forces,  and  forces  as  redoubtable  as 
new,  forces  which  we  had  believed  satisfied  by  the  solution 
given  to  the  social  difficulties  in  1789,  but  which  are  not 
satisfied,  which  each  day  become  the  more  inflamed,  which 
each  day  arm  thousands  against  society  ....  which  .  .  .  . 
inflame  thousands  of  hearts  and  arm  perhaps  millions  of 
hands  against  society.  There  is  the  danger. 

What  then  is  the  remedy?  asked  Montalembert. 

“  I  declare  frankly  ”,  he  replied,  “  I  know  no  other  than 
the  old  Christian  spirit  which,  up  to  the  present,  has  unified 
French  society  and  European  society.”  He  declared  that 
neither  philosophy  nor  legislation  would  avail.  There  was 
only  one  remedy,  the  instruction  of  the  Church  given  to  the 
people  by  means  of  liberty.2  What  the  people  needed  was 
respect,  respect  for  property,  respect  for  the  powers  that 
be,  which  the  Church  would  teach  them.  “.  .  .  .  I,”  he 
affirmed,  “  maintain  that  the  Catholic  doctrine,  which  we 
wish  to  dififuse  in  the  French  people  by  means  of  the  liberty 
of  instruction,  inspires  and  creates  this  respect,  in  placing 
the  rights  of  authority  beside  the  rights  of  God  himself.”  s 
A  victory  of  brute  force  over  socialism,  he  declared,  would 

1  Moniteur,  September  19,  1848. 

2  Ibid. 

9  Ibid.,  September  21,  1848. 


THE  FALLOUX  LAW 


275 


275] 

be  “  sterile,  monstrous,  detestable  ”  if  something  were  not 
done  to  heal  the  moral  malady  of  society.  In  short  em¬ 
power  the  Church  to  teach  as  freely  as  she  wished,  and 
society  would  be  saved. 

Jules  Simon  declared  that  he  would  immediately  support 
Monitalembert  -if,  like  the  Catholic  orator,  he  feared  an 
“anarchy  of  intellects”;  and  if  the  state  should  so  far 
forget  or  dishonor  itself  as  to  neglect  its  duty  in  the  “  for¬ 
mation  of  the  citizen  ”,  he  would  wish  that  “  that  grand 
creed  which  has  already  saved  the  world  so  many  times  ” 
should  save  it  still.  But,  he  gave  the  Assembly  to  under¬ 
stand,  he  had  not  lost  all  faith  in  the  state  or  in  philosophy. 
“  I  believe  then  ”.  he  affirmed,  “  that  the  right  to  teach 
ought  not  to  be  inscribed  in  the  draft  of  the  constitution, 
and  I  believe  that  the  liberty  of  instruction  ought  to  be  in¬ 
scribed  there  with  its  indispensable  corrective:  the  supreme 
guarantee  and  the  surveillance  of  the  state.”  “We  find 
ourselves  once  more  between  these  two  alternatives,  liberty 
regulated  and  liberty  unlimited.  Well!  Our  choice  is 
made:  we  are  for  the  liberty  regulated.”  Nevertheless,  he 
declared  that  it  was  not  his  wish  to  continue  the  warfare 
with  the  Church. 

It  is  with  a  feeling  of  keen  regret  that  I  have  heard  recom¬ 
mence  here  what  has  been  called  the  quarrel  between  the 
University  and  the  Clergy.  Quarrel!  Who  can  think  to¬ 
day  of  having  a  quarrel  with  anything  but  the  common  enemy, 
the  enemy  of  society?  Upon  my  honor  and  before  God  I 
know  no  other  than  this  enemy — I  wish  no  other — and  whoso¬ 
ever  will  march  with  me  against  this  enemy,  instead  of  wrong¬ 
ing  him,  I  will  hold  out  to  him  a  loyal  and  fraternal  hand.x 

Then  Falloux  came  forward  to  support  Jules  Simon  and 
with  him  the  bourgeoisie.  “  We  have  to  concern  ourselves 
with  only  one  principle  ”,  he  said.  “  This  principle,  no  one 


1  Moniteur,  September  21,  1848. 


2^6  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [276 

contests  it:  education  is  free;  we  have  to  place  beside  this 
principle  only  one  restriction  which  no  one  any  longer 
opposes:  ithe  surveillance  of  the  state.”1  Montalembert 
then  withdrew  his  amendment.  “  In  the  face  of  multi¬ 
farious  doctrines  ”,  said  Dufaure,  “  the  state  cannot  be  in¬ 
different.”  Nevertheless  two  of  the  ecclesiastics  in  the 
assembly,  the  bishops  of  Langres  and  Orleans,  fearing  lest 
it  would  be  oppressive  of  the  liberties  of  the  Church,  both 
opposed  the  supervision  of  the  state.  But  they  were  in 
the  minority  and  article  IX  of  the  constitution  was  voted 
as  it  stood. 

The  fear  of  socialism  had  thus  impelled  the  bourgeoisie 
to  give  way  to  the  Catholics  and  concede  them  the  liberty 
to  give  instruction;  but  the  same  fear  had  prevented  them 
from  granting  it  as  completely  as  the  Parti  Catholique  had 
desired.  Furthermore  the  clerical  peril  still  caused  many 
alarms.  “.  .  .  .  The  fear  of  clerical  domination  ”,  said 
Montalembert,  “  prevails  over  the  mind  of  these  bourgeoisie 
to  the  same  degree  as  the  fear  of  the  Republic.  .  .  .  There 
is  fear  of  ithe  evil  and  dread  of  the  remedy.  .  .  .”  2  The 
right  to  supervise  all  instruction  was,  therefore,  retained  by 
the  state  and  inscribed  in  its  constitution. 

After  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution  the  educational 
question  that  arose  was:  Did  the  project  of  Carnot,  which 
was  still  before  a  committee  of  the  Assembly,  embody  the 
promises  and  assure  ithe  guarantees  of  the  Constitution?3 

1  Moniteur,  Sept.  21,  1848.  “ .  .  .  the  supple  M.  de  Falloux,”  said 

Eugene  Veuillot,  “  addressed  the  Assembly  to  overshadow  the  truths 
which  the  head  of  the  Parti  Catholique  had  exposed.”  Op.  cit.,  ii,  p.  273. 
The  comment  of  an  uncompromising  member  of  the  Parti  Catholique. 

2  Lecanuet,  op.  cit.,  ii,  pp.  412-413. 

*  Cf.  Michel,  op.  cit.,  pp.  52-58.  The  revision  which  the  committee 
made  in  Carnot’s  project  illustrates  the  reaction  against  socialism. 
“The  project  of  Carnot  represents  the  democratic  and  laic  effort  in  the 
Constituent  in  the  matter  of  popular  education.  The  minutes  of  the 
committee  represent  the  offensive  reaction  of  the  idea  of  social  defense 
sheltered  behind  constituted  religion.”  Michel,  op.  cit.,  p.  58. 


THE  FALLOUX  LAW 


2  77 


277 ] 

The  Catholics  said,  No !  To  many  it  seemed  to  savour  too 
much  of  socialism  to  be  acceptable.1  The  Abbe  Cahour 
described  it  as  “  the  tomb  of  liberty  of  instruction  ”,  “  the 
most  audacious  attack  which,  since  1793,  legislation  has 
dealt  against  individual,  domestic,  civil  and  religious 
liberty,”  in  short,  nothing  but  communism  “  applied  to  public 
instruction  and  thus  invading  the  whole  of  society.”  2 

The  project  of  M.  'Carnot  is  only  the  counterpart  of  that  of 
M.  Louis  Blanc  on  labor.  While  the  latter  claims  to  organize 
society  in  the  material  order,  the  former  aspires  to  organize 
it  after  an  analogous  plan  in  the  intellectual  and  moral  order. 
The  one  is  engrossed  with  enslaving  the  body,  the  other,  the 
mind.  These  are  the  two  principal  forces  by  the  means  of 
which  communistic  socialism  has  proposed  to  demoralize  the 
people,  to  overturn  society  and  the  world. 

Carnot,  in  order  that  no  citizen  might  lack  the  measure 
of  intellectual  culture  necessary  to  the  exercise  of  his 
political  rights,  had  proposed  to  make  education  obligatory. 
“  That  the  people  have  need  of  intellectual  culture  we  do  not 
deny,”  said  Abbe  Cahour:  “but  that  is  no  longer  the  ques- 

1  Carnot’s  idea  that  the  clergy  in  the  course  of  their  training  should 
undergo  a  national  education  may  also  have  made  the  Catholics  alarmed. 
“  The  Catholic  clergy,”  said  Carnot,  “  in  my  estimation  are  only  too 
disposed,  by  reason  of  the  education  that  they  receive  and  the  position 
that  they  have  hitherto  occupied,  to  hold  themselves  apart  from  the 
great  national  movement.  To  combat  this  sad  tendency  it  is  desirable 
that  the  clergy  should  more  and  more  be  recruited  from  the  establish¬ 
ments  of  public  instruction,  and  should  be  separated  from  their  young 
contemporaries  only  to  receive  in  the  grand  seminaire  the  special  in¬ 
struction  indispensable  for  the  exercise  of  the  sacred  ministry.  One 
would  thus  see  the  clergy  abandon  an  esprit  de  corporation  quite  op¬ 
posed  to  the  republican  spirit,  adopt  national  habits  and  retain  with  a 
foreign  state  only  that  spiritual  bond  which  attaches  them  to  the  supreme 
head  of  the  Church.”  Op.  cit.,  p.  45.  But  this  conception  of  the  func¬ 
tion  of  the  clergy  was  quite  opposed  to  the  movement  of  the  Church. 

2  Cahour,  Abbe  Abel,  Attentat  a  la  liberte  des  families,  des  communes 
et  des  cultes  an  pro  jet  de  loi  de  M.  Carnot  sur  Vinstruction  (Nantes, 
1848),  p.  5- 


2 78  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [278 

tion.  It  is  a  question  of  knowing  who  ought  to  give  this 
education.  M.  Carnot  and  his  political  coreligionists  claim 
that  it  is  the  state,  while  we  believe  that  it  is  the  family.”  1 
By  placing  education  in  the  hands  of  the  state  it  was  feared 
that  the  influence  of  the  family,  and  hence  of  the  Church, 
would  be  undermined. 

The  project  on  primary  instruction  [said  the  same  writer] 
has  the  same  origin  as  the  law  on  divorce,  the  progressive 
tax,  and  that  crowd  of  other  social-economical  projects  which 
have  appeared  to  us  like  phantoms  at  the  moment  of  revolu¬ 
tionary  tempest,  and  have  thrown  terror  amongst  us.  But 
more  persistent  than  the  others,  it  has  not  disappeared  like 
them.  It  has  remained  until  the  present  time  hovering  over 
our  heads  to  the  terror  of  all  good  citizens.  Its  withdrawal 
alone  can  calm  all  alarm.2 

The  withdrawal  of  the  project  of  Carnot  was  therefore 
one  of  the  conditions  that  the  Parti  Catholiqae  laid  be¬ 
fore  General  Cavaignac  if  he  desired  their  support  in  his 
candidacy  for  the  Presidency.3  But  this  he  refused  to  do, 
saying  that  it  had  already  cost  him  pain  enough  to  sacrifice 
his  friend  Carnot  to  the  demands  of  the  right.4  This  re¬ 
fusal  was  one  of  the  ostensible  reasons  the  members  of  the 
Parti  C atholique  gave  for  withdrawing  their  support  from 
the  republican  leader.5  Moreover  Louis  Napoleon  had 
vaguely  promised  to  support  liberty  of  instruction ;  and  this 
promise  had  doubtless  gained  him  many  votes  for  his  candi- 

1  Cahour,  op.  cit.,  p.  11. 

2  Ibid.,  pp.  30-31. 

3  Cf.  supra,  chap,  iv,  p.  166.  “Our  friends,”  said  the  Univers,  “have 
asked  of  M.  Cavaignac,  as  condition  of  our  support,  the  withdrawal  of 
that  disastrous  bill  of  M.  Carnot  on  primary  instruction.  M.  Cavaignac 
has  refused.”  Univers,  December  2,  1848.  Cf.  ibid.,  December  7,  1848. 

4  Lecanuet,  op.  cit.,  ii,  p.  416. 

5  Cf.  supra,  chap,  iv ;  Michel,  op.  cit.,  p.  10. 


THE  FALLOUX  LAW 


279 


27  9] 

dacy.  The  fact  that  he  had  offered  the  portfolio  of  wor¬ 
ship  and  public  instruction  to  Falloux  was  taken  as  a 
further  pledge  of  his  good  will.  And  when  he  was  actually 
elected  the  Catholics,  seeing  in  Falloux’ s  appointment  the 
fulfilment  of  their  desires  concerning  education,  compelled 
him  to  accept  the  proffered  post.  Falloux  himself  accepted 
this  interpretation  of  his  mission,  and  lost  no  time  in  per¬ 
forming  it.  Accordingly  on  the  4th  of  January,  1849,  he 
published  in  the  Moniteur  two  reports  to  the  President, 
which  announced  the  withdrawal  of  the  project  of  Carnot, 
the  intention  to  prepare  a  new  bill  and  his  determination  to 
carry  out  the  promise  contained  in  article  IX  of  the  Con¬ 
stitution  guaranteeing  liberty  of  instruction. 

One  of  my  predecessors,  M.  Carnot,  laid  before  the  National 
Assembly  the  thirtieth  of  last  June  a  new  plan  for  primary 
institutions;  but  the  bill  has  raised  the  gravest  objections.  It 
it  at  once  too  vast  and  too  restricted.  From  the  financial 
point  of  view  it  greatly  exceeds  the  present  resources  of  the 
treasury;  from  the  point  of  view  of  social  principles,  it  arbi¬ 
trarily  substitutes  the  state  for  the  father  of  the  family.  .  . 

The  same  day  Falloux  appeared  at  the  tribune  to  announce 
the  withdrawal  of  the  project  of  Carnot  and  the  appoint¬ 
ment  of  a  new  committee  to  consider  the  educational  ques¬ 
tion.2  The  announcement  at  once  raised  a  storm  of  pro¬ 
test  from  the  Assembly:  “  It  is  a  defiance!  It  is  an  outrage 
against  our  dignity!  It  is  an  attack  on  our  sovereignty!  ” 
were  cries  that  were  heard  on  every  hand.3  The  Con- 

1  Moniteur,  January  4,  1849. 

*  Michel,  op.  cit.,  pp.  33  et  seq. 

8  Barrot,  op.  cit.,  iii,  p.  64.  “A  bill  on  public  instruction  had  been  pre¬ 
sented  by  M.  Carnot;  the  work  naturally  revealed  the  socialistic  and 
demagogic  prejudices  which  dominated  the  author.  The  parliamentary 
committee,  over  which  M.  Barthelemy  St.-Hilaire  presided,  had  cor¬ 
rected  and  almost  entirely  re-made  this  project.  But  M.  de  Falloux  did 
not  think  that  he  could  appropriate  the  work  of  the  committee  any  more 
than  that  of  M.  Carnot.”  Ibid. 


2 go  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [280 

stituent  Assembly  perceived  in  this  withdrawal  of  its  bill 
an  attempt  to  override  its  will,  of  which  it  was  becoming 
the  more  jealous  as  its  tenure  of  power  was  drawing  to  a 
close.  Odilon  Barrot  immediately  came  to  the  at-d  of  the 
minister  of  instruction  and  informed  the  Assembly  that 
the  ministry  were  not  obliged  to  defend  a  law  of  which  they 
did  not  approve;  that  they  had  a  right  to  maintain  or  with¬ 
draw  it  ;  and  that  if  they  were  asked  why  they  did  not  adopt 
the  project  in  question,  they  would  reply  that  it  was  a  matter 
of  conviction  and  of  conscience.1 

So  sensitive  indeed  was  the  Assembly  over  its  waning 
power  that  it  decided  to  nominate  a  committee  of  its  own 
to  prepare  a  bill  on  education.  This  attitude  of  the  As¬ 
sembly  and  the  fact  that  its  lease  of  life  was  almost  run 
aroused  the  question :  what  would  be  the  temper  of  the 
new  assembly?  The  educational  problem  therefore  was  one 
reason  that  prevented  the  Catholics  from  being  indifferent 
in  the  conduct  of  the  elections  to  the  Legislative  Assembly 
which  were  set  for  the  13th  of  May.  Montalembert,  in 
sending  instructions  to  the  Catholic  committees  throughout 
the  country,  urged  them  ruthlessly  to  proscribe  all  candidates 
who  refused  to  support  liberty  of  instruction,  just  as  he 
proscribed  those  who  were  suspected  of  sympathy  with 
socialism.2 

If  there  can  still  be  found  [wrote  Montalembert]  any  men 
within  the  ranks  of  the  moderate  or  conservative  party,  who 
persist,  in  the  face  of  the  calamities  of  our  time,  in  holding 
the  truth  captive  and  corrupting  the  sources  of  that  public 
instruction  which  the  constitution  has  enfranchised  from  all 
monopoly  .  .  .  ,  if  there  still  exist  hypocrites  and  madmen 
of  this  breed,  ah !  certainly  we  shall  never  ask  you  to  support 

1  Barrot,  op.  cit.,  iii,  p.  65. 

3  Cf.  supra,  chapter  iii. 


THE  FALLOUX  LAW 


281 


281] 

their  candidature,  and  your  hand  should  wither  up  rather 
than  inscribe  their  name  on  your  ballot.  .  .  } 

Shortly  after  the  4th  of  January,  1849,  and  the  withdrawal 
of  the  project  of  Carnot  Falloux  nominated  two  extra-par¬ 
liamentary  committees  to  consider  primary  and  secondary 
education  respectively,  which,  after  their  first  sessions, 
united  and  elected  Thiers  as  president.2  This  committee 
was  composed  of  both  laymen  and  ecclesiastics;  but  Falloux 
was  careful  to  exclude  from  it  the  intransigents  of  the 
University  as  well  as  those  of  the  Parti  Catholique .3  The 
dominant  spirits  were  Thiers  and  Cousin,  the  Abbe  Dupan- 
loup  and  Montalembert.4  It  was  within  this  committee  that 
the  Falloux  Law  was  prepared.  Talcing  the  constitution 
as  a  starting  point,  the  intention  of  Falloux  was  to  give 
the  Church  a  greater  place  in  education  without  destroying 
the  University.5 

Thiers  at  the  outset  made  it  plain  that  he  saw  safety  for 
society  only  in  so  far  as  primary  instruction  was  placed  in 
the  hands  of  the  ministers  of  religion  to  the  exclusion  of 
lay  instructors.1 

If  the  law  of  M.  Carnot  has  so  greatly  frightened  me  [he 
declared]  it  is  not  because  it  has  diminished  the  qualifica¬ 
tions  for  admission  to  the  rank  of  instructor,  or  because  it 
has  excluded  the  clergy  from  surveillance;  I  have  perceived 
something  in  it  much  more  deplorable  still,  namely,  the  in- 

1  Lecanuet,  op.  cit.,  iii,  pp.  430-431. 

2  Lacombe,  op.  cit.,  pp.  11-12. 

3  Michel,  op.  cit.,  pp.  96  et  seq. 

4  Lacombe,  op.  cit.,  p.  31.  Falloux  attended  only  very  occasionally. 
Melun,  op.  cit.,  ii,  p.  62. 

5  Cf.  Weill,  Georges,  Histoire  de  Venseignement  secondaire  en  France 
( 1802-1920 ),  (Paris,  1921),  p.  118. 

8  Melun,  op.  cit.,  ii,  pp.  62-63. 


282  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [282 

troduction  into  the  communes  of  thirty-seven  thousand  sociali¬ 
sts  and  communists,  veritable  anti-cures.1 

He  cited  the  fact  that  it  was  amongst  the  most  intelligent 
and  best  educated  of  the  working  classes  that  socialism  had 
made  most  headway,  and  urged  that  as  a  reason  for  watch¬ 
ing  over  the  “  social  doctrines  "  that  were  taught  to  the 
masses.  “  To  read,  to  write,  to  count,  that  is  what  it  is 
needful  bo  beach;  all  the  rest  is  superfluous."  2  Indeed  so 
far  did  Thiers  go  in  his  depreciation  of  popular  education 
and  in  his  ridicule  of  the  attempt  “  to  make  a  savant  out 
of  a  workman  ",  that  one  of  his  colleagues  laughingly  ex¬ 
claimed  :  “  According  to  you,  M.  President,  it  would  be 
necessary  to  have  ten  thousand  livres  income  to  possess  the 
right  to  learn  to  read."  3  Society  was  in  great  peril,  he 
affirmed;  and  he  thought  the  “most  efficacious  remedy" 
would  be  to  confide  primary  instruction  to  the  clergy. 

But  other  members  of  the  committee  did  not  support 
Thiers  in  his  readiness  to  give  primary  education  entirely 
to  the  Church. 

I  desire  ....  sincere  accord  between  religion  and  the  state 
[said  Cousin].  .  .  .  But  I  add  that  I  do  not  desire  that  the 
cures  or  the  members  of  the  religious  congregations  be  ex¬ 
clusively  charged  with  primary  instruction.  I  only  ask  that 
the  cure  may  have  in  the  commune,  over  the  public  as  over 
the  private  instructor,  an  influence  more  direct  and  more 
personal  than  under  the  existing  law.4 

He  did  not  desire  to  create  a  new  monopoly  in  place  of  the 
old  one,  or  “to  give  the  University  to  the  clergy;  but  to 

1  Lacombe,  op.  cit.,  p.  35. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  36. 

3  Melun,  op.  cit.,  p.  63. 

4  Lacombe,  op.  cit.,  pp.  74-75. 


THE  FALLOUX  LAW 


put  the  clergy  in  the  University.  The  clergy  not  only  have 
need  of  liberty,  but  also  of  protection  and  of  surveillance.”  1 
Nor  did  Montalembert,  stout  champion  as  he  was  of  the 
rights  of  the  Church,  want  to  erect  a  monopoly  of  the 
clergy  in  place  of  that  of  the  University. 


I  share  entirely  the  opinion  of  M.  Thiers  on  the  extent  of 
the  evil  [he  declared]  and  on  the  remedies  for  it.  Neverthe¬ 
less  there  is  one  point  on  which  I  cannot  agree  with  him,  that 
is  on  giving  the  exclusive  influence  to  the  clergy.  For  I  do 
not  wish  in  any  way  to  forswear  the  principle  of  liberty  of 
instruction.2 


It  was  therefore  a  question  of  regulating  liberty  rather 
than  of  establishing  a  new  monopoly. 

Let  us  retain  education  by  lay  instructors  [urged  Cousin]. 
Most  certainly  no  one  has  been  at  all  times  and  everywhere 
the  avowed  partizan  of  the  participation  of  the  religious  con¬ 
gregations  in  primary  instruction  more  than  I.  But  to  charge 
those  congregations  alone  with  it,  without  the  competition  of 
lay  education,  would  be  to  court  their  ruin  by  giving  them  in 
the  eyes  of  the  populace  the  odium  of  a  monopoly.  .  .  .3 


Although  there  was  no  longer  to  be  a  monopoly  of  educa¬ 
tion,  it  was  necessary  “  to  fortify  the  position  of  morality  ”, 
and  to  make  primary  instruction  “  a  strong  barrier  capable 
of  arresting  the  invasion  of  injurious  doctrines  or  the  in¬ 
fluence  of  a  demagogic  power.”  Liberty  should  be  so  pro¬ 
tected  as  to  prevent  “  a  Raspail  from  maintaining  a 
school.”  4  This  was  to  be  done  by  requiring  a  brevet  de 
capacite  of  alll  who  sought  a  license  to  teach  or  open  a 
school,  and  by  subjecting  all  to  a  strict  supervision  in  which 

1  Lacombe,  op.  cit.,  p.  77. 

*  Ibid.,  p.  94. 

s  Ibid.,  p.  73. 

4  Ibid.,  pp.  76,  90. 


284  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [284 

the  clergy  should  play  an  important  role.  “  Let  the  cure 
have  an  eye  upon  every  phase  of  instruction  ”,  said  Cousin, 
”  as  well  as  expound  the  catechism;  for  in  teaching  children 
to  read  one  is  able  to  impart  mischievous  doctrines.”  1  If, 
he  declared,  there  is  no  real  or  beneficial  primary  instruc¬ 
tion  unless  it  is  based  on  religion,  and  if,  on  the  other  hand, 
there  is  no  religion  without,  the  clergy,  let  us  not  imprison 
both  religion  and  the  clergy  within  the  walls  of  a  temple, 
but  let  us  seek  their  intervention  in  the  world  outside,  and 
give  them  without  any  scruples  a  prominent  part  in  primary 
education.2 

But  should  the  brevet  de  capacite  be  required  of  members 
of  the  congregations  or  of  the  clergy  before  allowing  them 
to  teach?  Cousin  was  in  favor  of  exacting  it  from  them 
as  well  as  from  lay  instructors.3  In  this  he  was  opposed 
by  both  Thiers  and  Dupanloup.  The  former  asked  that  all 
members  of  religious  congregations  should  be  exempted 
from  examination  and  the  brevet 4  while  the  latter  urged 
that  for  the  priest  his  letters  of  priesthood  should  suffice. 

The  supervision  of  primary  instruction,  it  was  proposed, 
should  be  intrusted  to  the  cure  of  each  diocese  assisted  by 
the  local  mayor.  But  in  order  to  assure  adequate  authority 
for  the  cure  in  his  duties  of  inspection,  an  academic  council 
should  be  erected  in  each  department,  a  third  of  the  members 
of  which  should  be  taken  from  the  secular  administration,  a 
third  from  the  religious  element  and  a  third  from  the  Uni¬ 
versity  and  judicial  body.5  Thus  it  was  proposed  to  decen¬ 
tralize  the  University  with  its  twenty-seven  academies,  each 
of  which  was  presided  over  by  a  rector,  and  substitute  for 

1  Lacombe,  op.  cit.,  p.  53. 

2  Ibid. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  102;  cf.  Michel,  op.  cit.,  p.  124. 

4  Ibid.,  p.  103 ;  Michel,  op.  cit.,  pp.  125  et  seq. 

5  Lacombe,  op.  cit.,  pp.  iio-m. 


THE  FALLOUX  LAW 


285] 


them  eighty-six  academic  councils,  one  in  each  department, 
in  each  of  which  the  bishop  would  have  a  seat  and  exert  an 
influence. 

It  was  over  the  creation  of  this  academic  council  of  the 
department  that  the  warmest  debate  in  the  discussion  of 
primary  education  took  place.  The  project  had  been 
worked  out  in  a  sub-committee,  and  when  it  was  laid  before 
the  full  committee  Cousin  declared  it  the  most  counter-re¬ 
volutionary  proposal  that  had  yet  been  made.1  The  Abbe 
Dupanloup  in  reply  explained  the  motives  that  had  actuated 
them  in  asking  for  such  a  change  in  the  educational  system. 
They  were  “  alarmed  ”  at  the  “  extreme  peril  ”  which  con¬ 
fronted  society;  for,  he  declared,  society  would  never  be 
able  to  resist  the  “  subversive  action  ”  of  forty  thousand  in¬ 
structors  (in  whose  ranks  socialism  “  already  counted  too 
many  adepts.”  They  did  not  propose  to  give  the  school  to 
the  cure,  however  desirable  that  might  be:  they  merely 
wished  to  assure  him,  along  with  the  mayor  of  the  com¬ 
mune,  the  moral  and  religious  supervision  of  primary  educa¬ 
tion.  But  the  question  was,  how  to  make  the  authority 
of  the  cure  real  and  effective.  Their  solution  was  the 
creation  of  the  academic  council  of  the  department.2 


It  is  in  vain  [said  Dupanloup]  that  we  shall  desire  to  give 
the  cure  an  influence  over  the  school  of  his  parish ;  he  will 
remain  powerless  without  the  establishment  of  the  depart¬ 
mental  committee.  There  indeed  will  be  his  bishop,  his  hier¬ 
archical  superior;  there  also  the  prefect  with  whom  the  cure 
will  always  have  better  relations  than  with  the  Voltairians  of 
the  arrondissement.  .  .  .3 


Moreover,  Dupanloup  argued: 

i  t 


1  Lacombe,  op.  cit.,  p.  ill. 

2  Ibid.,  pp.  1 1 2- 1 1 3. 

*  Ibid.,  p.  1 14. 


286  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [286 

In  the  chief  town  of  the  department  the  magistracy  and  the 
clergy  are  powerful.  It  is  also  in  the  chief  town  of  the  de¬ 
partment  that  we  are  able  to  gather  the  landowners  menaced 
by  the  influence  of  a  too  great  number  of  primary  instructors. 
Therefore  it  is  in  the  department  that  it  will  be  most  suitable 
to  establish  this  council  designed  to  struggle  against  the 
dangers,  unhappily  so  serious,  which  result  for  society  from 
the  present  condition  of  primary  instruction.1 

The  institution  of  the  academic  council  of  the  department 
was  thought  to  offer  greater  influence  to  the  clergy  than  the 
existing  system :  that  was  the  chief  reason  for  its  creation.3 

Thiers,  seeing  in  the  council  of  the  department  a  means 
of  consolidating  the  influence  of  the  bourgeoisie,  was  im¬ 
mediately  in  accord  with  Abbe  Dupanloup.  Cousin,  how¬ 
ever,  fearing  the  destruction  of  the  University,  was  not  so 
easily  won.  It  was  only  when  he  was  assured  that  this 
council  would  be  subordinated  to  a  grand  national  council 
that  he  acquiesced.3 

But  if  Thiers  was  ready  to  place  primary  education  in 
the  hands  of  the  clergy,  he  was  by  no  means  willing  to  give 
them  secondary  education,  which  became  the  ground  of 
contention  in  the  committee.  He  declared  that  if,  in  the 
matter  of  primary  instruction,  he  was  disposed  “  to  accord 
an  absolute  and  exclusive  influence  to  the  clergrv,  because 
primary  instruction  addressed  itself  to  the  masses,  because 
the  masses  were  in  need  of  truth  imposed  upon  them,  be¬ 
cause  faith  ought  to  be  their  only  philosophy  ”,  his  opinion 
was  quite  different  regarding  secondary  education,  which 
was  intended  for  the  middle  classes,  who  “  revolted  against 
imposed  doctrines  ”,  and  who  considered  “  free  philoso¬ 
phical  discussion  ”  as  a  right.’4  He  wished  the  state  to  con- 

1  Lacombe,  op.  cit.,  p.  118. 

2  Cf.  Michel,  op.  cit.,  p.  132. 

3  Lacombe,  op.  cit.,  pp.  131-133. 

4  Ibid.,  pp.  195-196. 


THE  FALLOUX  LAW 


trol  secondary  education  because  he  believed  that  the  state 
possessed  the  right  “  to  fashion  youth  according  to  its 
model.”  1  Ecclesiastics,  it  is  true,  shouild  have  the  right 
to  teach,  but  under  the  conditions  and  supervision  of  the 
state. 

Cousin  likewise  wished  the  state  supreme  in  secondary 
education.  The  “  supreme  authority  ”  of  the  state  should 
have  as  its  mission  “  to  curb  the  abuses  ”  of  liberty.2  For 
this  purpose  he  desired  the  control  placed  in  the  hands  of  a 
“  grand  council  of  instruction  ”.8  “  I  love  this  great  name 

of  University  ”,  he  affirmed,  “  and  I  shall  sustain  this  power¬ 
ful  institution  while  introducing  into  its  new  organization 
the  modifications  the  present  state  of  minds  and  morals  de¬ 
mands.”  4 

The  Abbe  Dupanloup  replied  that  he  did  not  reject  “  all 
control  of  the  state.”  5  He  declared  that,  for  the  preven¬ 
tion  and  repression  of  evil,  he  wished  this  authority  “  large, 
absolute,  universal.”  6  Nothing  could  be  better  than  that 
the  state  should  intervene  to  repress  the  abuses  that  disorder 
created.  That  indeed  was  its  mission.  But  he  warned  the 
committee  to  be  on  their  guard  against  exaggerating  the 
duty  of  the  state,  and  thus  create  evils  greater  than  those 
against  which  they  desired  to  fortify  society.  Let  the  state 
beware  lest  it  encroach  upon  the  duties  and  rights  of  the 
family  and  of  the  Church.  Thiers  had  declared  that  the 
state  possessed  the  right  to  fashion  youth  after  its  image; 
but  for  his  part,  he  maintained  that  society  possessed  the 
right  to  defend  itself  against  a  state  or  authority  in  the 


1  Lacombe,  op.  cit.,  p.  197. 
*  Ibid.,  p.  185. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  187. 

4  Ibid. 

5  Ibid.,  p.  206. 

6  Ibid.,  p.  210. 


288  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [288 

hands  of  a  perverted  and  corrupting  administration.  And 
he  reminded  his  hearers  that  “  the  state  might  call  itself 
Proudhon.”  1  To  fashion  die  child  according  to  the  model 
of  the  state  was  to  wound  at  once  his  dignity  and  his  liberty. 
What  the  Church  demanded  was  liberty  of  instruction. 
Undoubtedly  he  would  fear  this  liberty  if  it  should  produce 
“  the  schools  of  a  Raspail  or  of  a  Proudhon  ” ;  but  with  the 
protection  of  the  state  such  as  he  was  ready  to  concede,  he 
did  not  think  that  liberty  would  have  “  for  a  result  the  pro¬ 
motion  of  anti-social  doctrines.”  2 

Dupanloup  also  repudiated  the  distinction  that  Thiers  had 
drawn  between  the  education  of  the  people  and  that  of  the 
upper  classes.  The  idea  that  religion  was  good  for  the 
poor  but  superfluous  for  the  rich  he  branded  as  “  disastrous 
and  deplorable.”  3  The  catastrophes  of  1793  and  1848 
were  the  result  of  such  a  way  of  thinking.  “  Faith!  Faith 
for  all !  that  is  what  it  is  necessary  to  recognize  as  indispen¬ 
sable  ”,  he  exclaimed.  Nor  would  he  admit  that  “  faith  ” 
should  be  “  imposed  ”  on  anyone. 

Faith  which  is  essential  for  all,  ought  to  be  the  same  for  all, 
that  is  to  say,  an  act  of  free  will,  without  ever  being  imposed 
on  anyone,  not  even  on  the  child  of  seven  years.  It  is  a  gift 
of  God,  to  which  virtue  alone  is  able  to  attain  and  which  no 
human  force  can  impose. 

The  bourgeoisie  needed  the  lessons  of  faith,  perhaps  more 
than  the  countryman.  What  the  Church  asked,  therefore, 
was  the  liberty  to  instruct  all  in  its  faith. 

Dupanloup  made  It  plain  that  he  did  not  desire  the  des¬ 
truction  of  the  University  and  that  he  was  quite  ready  to 
enter  into  a  “  transaction.”  Notwithstanding,  there  were 

1  Lacombe,  op.  cit.,  pp.  212-214. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  206. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  217. 


THE  FALLOUX  LAW 


289] 


some  concessions  which  the  University  must  make  to  the 
Church,  else  the  war  would  continue  between  the  Church 
and  the  state.1  These  conditions  of  peace  were:  that  the 
state  should  forego  the  control  of  the  petits  seminaires ;  that 
it  should  abolish  the  excessive  qualifications  that  were  im¬ 
posed  on  the  school-master;  that  it  should  suppress  the  re¬ 
quirement  of  a  certificate  of  attendance  at  a  state  institu¬ 
tion  for  the  baccalaureate;  and  finally  that  it  should  no 
longer  exclude  from  educational  rights  the  members  of  con¬ 
gregations  duly  authorized  by  the  Church.2 

The  first  three  concessions  raised  little  opposition  and 
were  easily  accorded.3  But  the  fourth  was  not  to  be  made 
without  a  struggle.  Underlying  the  question  of  the  re¬ 
cognition  of  the  educational  rights  of  the  congregations  in¬ 
discriminately  was  the  question  of  the  Jesuits;  and  the 
Jesuits  still  aroused  many  susceptibilities.  One  solution 
of  the  difficulty  that  was  suggested,  was  to  pass  over  the 
Jesuits  without  mention.4  But  such  a  proposal  appeared  in¬ 
admissible,  for  the  laws  against  them  were  still  unrepealed. 5i 
Thiers  was  the  first  to  oppose  their  admission  to  educa¬ 
tional  rights.  If  all  the  French  clergy  were  agreed  on  the 
utility  of  the  Jesuits,  he  said,  he  would  willingly  consent  to 
the  sacrifice  asked;  but  a  “notable  part”  of  the  clergy 
themselves  were  dubious  as  to  the  “  good  to  be  done  by  the 
Jesuits.”  He  did  not  fear  ultramontanism  as  formerly,  he 
declared;  but  he  was  afraid  that  “the  grand  maxims”  of 
the  Galilean  Church  would  be  menaced  by  the  members  of 
the  Society  of  Jesus.  The  liberty  of  the  French  Church 
would  be  threatened  by  their  admission  to  the  right  to 

1  Lacombe,  op.  cit.,  p.  220. 

2  Ibid.,  pp.  220;  cf.  Michel,  op.  cit.,  p.  148. 

3  Ibid.,  pp.  228-238;  Michel,  op.  cit.,  p.  148  et  seq. 

4  Lacombe,  op.  cit.,  p.  280. 

5  Ibid.,  pp.  254,  279. 


290  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [290 

teach.1  Nevertheless  he  signified  that  if  they  could  make  a 
law  which  would  exclude  the  clubs,  while  permitting  the 
Jesuits,  he  would  gladly  agree.2 

Cousin  supported  Thiers  in  his  opposition  to  the  Jesuits. 

In  your  own  interest  [he  said  to  the  Church]  and  when  the 
public  sentiment  is  against  this  institution,  do  not  ask  for 
the  reestablishment  of  the  Jesuits,  whose  aptitude  to  teach  has, 
perhaps  from  the  first,  been  too  greatly  exalted,  and  who  have 
been  reproached  with  being  imbued,  not  with  ultramontanism, 
which  signifies  nothing,  but  with  certain  ideas  that  are  in¬ 
compatible  with  our  present  political  and  social  customs.  .  .  . 
If  the  state  deems  that  the  existence  of  the  Society  of  Jesus 
does  not  present  any  objection,  let  it  recognize  it  and  then  it 
will  perform  its  work  freely;  but  no  middle  course,  no  silence 
which  will  be  nothing  else  than  weakness  and  pusillanimity.3 

Then  Dupanloup  in  a  final  speech  warmly  championed 
the  cause  of  the  Jesuits. 

Assuredly  [he  conceded]  the  Church  cannot  regard  the 
Jesuits  as  absolute  perfection;  but  [he  maintained]  it  com 
siders  them  perfectly  innocent  of  all  the  accusations  brought 
against  them.  This  is  its  profound  conviction;  it  has  no 
other,  nor  can  have;  and  as  the  Church  is  justice,  it  cannoc 
like  Pilate  condemn  the  just  and  then  believe  itself  justified 
by  washing  its  hands.  .  .  . 

Moreover  individual  Jesuits,  he  claimed,  had  always  been 
worthy  of  respect;  and  from  Voltaire,  who  wrote  concern¬ 
ing  them  to  the  bishop  of  Soissons,  the  only  member  of  the 
episcopate  who  had  voted  against  them,  all  recognized  that 
their  “  morals  were  pure  and  above  reproach.”  4 

1  Lacombe,  op.  cit.,  pp.  238-240. 

*  Ibid.,  p.  282. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  254. 

4  Ibid.,  p.  291. 


THE  FALLOUX  LAW 


291 


29I] 

No  one  attempted  to  reply  [said  Melun].  M.  Thiers  was 
satisfied  with  saying :  “  Let  it  be  so,  I  no  longer  oppose  the 
article :  only  I  request  that  when  it  shall  be  discussed  before 
the  Assembly,  you  will  allow  me  to  hide  under  a  table.  For 
how  can  I  ask  to-day  for  the  recognition  of  the  right  of  the 
Jesuits  to  teach  on  our  country,  after  having  only  a  few  years 
ago,  asked  and  obtained  their  exclusion  from  France?  ”  1 

“  Cousin !  Cousin !  ”  he  exclaimed  afterwards,  “  have  you 
comprehended  the  lesson  that  we  have  received  when  he 
[Dupanloup]  spoke  of  the  Jesuits?  The  Abbe  is  right. 
Yes,  we  have  fought  against  justice,  against  virtue,  and  we 
owe  them  [the  Jesuits]  amends.”  2 

But  what  concessions  was  the  Church  willing  to  make  to 
the  University?  Cousin,  following  the  example  of  Dupan¬ 
loup,  laid  down  the  points  that  the  Church  must  concede, 
without  which,  he  declared,  there  could  be  no  accord.  The 
national  system  of  public  instruction,  comprising  both  public 
and  private  schools,  must  be  maintained.  The  administra¬ 
tion  of  public  instruction  should  be  organized  in  a  body 
called  the  University  which  would  inspire  and  spread  the 
esprit  de  corps.  Uniformity  of  supervision  should  be  ob¬ 
tained  by  means  of  the  council  of  the  University  and  acade¬ 
mic  councils  with  tiheir  inspectors.3  Degrees  should  be 
conferred  by  the  faculties  of  the  state.  Dupanloup  ac¬ 
cepted  these  conditions  with  few  reservations.  Omit  the 
name  University,  he  said,  and  he  would  accept  that  institu¬ 
tion  which  had  been  called  “  a  great  national  system  of 
public  instruction.”  '4  He  believed  that  it  was  necessary, 
in  order  that  the  man  might  occupy  a  useful  place  amongst 

1  Melun,  op.  cit.,  ii,  p.  67. 

2  Lacombe,  op.  cit.,  pp.  298-299. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  255. 

4  Ibid.,  p.  293. 


292  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [292 

his  fellow  citizens,  that  the  child  should  he  reared  in  con¬ 
formity  with  the  esprit  of  his  country.  As  to  the  right  of 
the  state  to  create  and  maintain  public  schools,  that  he  had 
never  contested.1  But  the  national  system  of  education 
should  leave  room  for  the  untrammeled  instruction  of  the 
Church.  Absolute  centralization  in  the  matter  of  education 
displeased  him,  he  said.2  He  styled  the  imperial  University, 
the  creation  of  a  “  mathematical  and  military  genius  ”,  “a 
great  work  without  equal  ” ;  but  at  the  same  time  he  stig¬ 
matized  it  as  “  faJlse.”  Nevertheless  he  “  very  willingly  ” 
accepted  the  new  organization  which  had  been  proposed, 
consisting  of  a  “  great  central  council  of  public  instruction 
and  academic  councils.”  8 

Thus  ended  the  general  discussion.  The  project  was 
then  referred  to  a  sub-committee  to  draft  a  bill  f  or  presenta¬ 
tion  before  the  Legislative  Assembly.  On  the  18th  of 
June,  amidst  the  stir  created  by  the  insurrection  of  the 
13th,  Falloux  introduced  his  bill  on  education  into  the 
Assembly,  where  it  was  “  very  well  received  ”  by  the  major¬ 
ity. 4  The  Assembly  immediately  appointed  a  committee  to 
consider  the  project,  by  whom  it  was  almost  rejected. 5 
From  the  parliamentary  committee  it  was  sent  to  the  Council 
of  State,  so  that  it  did  not  come  up  for  discussion  in  the 
Assembly  until  the  14th  of  January,  1850. 

The  bill  that  Falloux  laid  before  the  Legislative  Assembly 
was  divided  into  three  sections,  one  dealing  with  the  authori¬ 
ties  who  controlled  education,  another  regulating  primary, 
and  a  third,  secondary  instruction. 

1  Lacombe,  op.  cit.,  p.  293. 

2  Ibid.,  pp.  296-297. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  297. 

4  Falloux,  Memoirs,  i,  pp.  402-403. 

5  Cf.  Seignobos  et  al.,  La  Lutte  scolaire  en  France  an  dix-neuvieme 
siecle  (Paris,  1912),  p.  174. 


THE  FALLOUX  LAW 


293 


293] 

At  the  head  of  the  educational  system  there  was  to  be  a 
Superior  Council  of  Public  Instruction,  consisting  of 
twenty-four  members,  the  president  of  which  should  be  the 
Minister  of  Public  Instruction.  Eight  of  its  members  were 
to  be  chosen  from  the  council  of  the  University,  and  should 
constitute  a  “  permanent  section  The  ecclesiastical  ele¬ 
ment  was  to  be  made  up  of  four  bishops  or  archbishops 
elected  by  their  colleagues,  a  minister  from  each  of  the  re¬ 
cognized  Protestant  bodies,  the  Reformed  and  the  Lutheran 
Churches,  and  a  representative  of  the  Jewish  Synagogue. 
But  this  body  was  largely  a  consultative  one.  It  might  be 
called  upon  to  give  its  opinion  on  bills  and  decrees,  which 
the  minister  might  submit  to  it ;  and  it  was  necessarily  con¬ 
sulted  regarding  examination  regulations,  programs  of 
studies,  supervision  of  free  schools,  the  establishment  of 
Lycees  and  Colleges,  and  the  books  to  be  authorized  in  public 
schools  or  to  be  forbidden  in  free  schools.  Finally  it  gave 
judgment  on  questions  submitted  by  the  Academic  Councils.1 

Subordinate  to  the  Superior  Council  were  the  eighty- 
six  Academies,  one  for  each  department.  Each  Acad¬ 
emy  was  to  be  administered  by  a  rector,  who  was  to  be  as¬ 
sisted  by  one  or  more  inspectors  and  by  an  Academic 
Council.  Amongst  the  members  of  this  council  were  the 
bishop  and  another  , cleric  of  his  nomination,  a  representa¬ 
tive  from  each  of  the  other  recognized  religious  bodies,  the 
prefect  and  representatives  of  the  legal  body.  Like  the 
Superior  Council  the  Academic  Council  was  a  consultative 
one.  Its  opinion  was  to  be  asked  on  the  following  mat¬ 
ters  :  the  condition  of  schools  in  the  department,  reforms  to 
be  introduced,  discipline  and  administration  of  public  estab¬ 
lishments,  the  budget  of  Lycees,  Colleges,  etc.,  and  support 
of  primary  schools.  Its  duty  was  also  to  investigate  all 


1  Articles  1-6. 


294  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [294 

cases  of  discipline  which  might  be  laid  before  it  by  the  min¬ 
ister  or  rector.  But  the  Academic  Council  possessed  an  ad¬ 
ministrative  function  as  well  as  a  consultative  one,  and  in 
this  lay  its  power.  It  was  to  pass  judgment  on  matters 
of  dispute  relative  to  the  obtaining  of  diplomas,  on  the 
opening  of  free  schools,  on  the  rights  of  individual  instruct¬ 
ors,  and  on  the  exercise  of  the  right  to  teach.  Moreover, 
all  disciplinary  procedures  were  under  the  control  of  this 
council  Each  year  it  was  to  present  a  report  to  the 
Superior  Council.1 

Provision  was  made  for  two  kinds  of  schools:  those 
“  founded  or  maintained  by  the  communes,  the  departments 
of  the  state  ” ;  and  those  “  f  ounded  or  maintained  by  individ¬ 
uals  or  by  associations,”  which  bore  the  name  of  “  free 
schools  Both  free  and  public  schools  were  to  be  inspected 
by  various  officials :  By  “  general  and  superior  inspectors  ” 
chosen  from  amongst  the  former  general  inspectors,  or 
from  the  teaching  body  who  possessed  the  degree  of  licen¬ 
tiate,  or  had  had  ten  years  experience;  by  academic  inspec¬ 
tors,  likewise  chosen  from  the  teaching  body;  by  inspectors 
of  primary  instruction  selected  from  the  general  inspec¬ 
tors  ;  and  finally  by  cantonal  delegates,  the  mayor,  the  cure, 
the  pastor  or  the  rabbi.  Besides,  there  was  to  be  a  special 
inspector  for  primary  instruction  in  each  arrondissement. 
In  the  case  of  free  schools  inspection  was  to  ensure  “  mor¬ 
ality,  hygiene  and  sanitation  ”,  and  to  make  sure  that  noth¬ 
ing  was  taught  “  contrary  to  the  constitution,  to  morality 
and  to  the  laws.”  2 

Any  Frenchman  who  had  attained  the  age  of  twenty-one 
was  permitted  to  teach  in  a  primary  school,  provided  he 
possessed  the  brevet  de  capacite.  Each  year  the  Academic 
Council  should  nominate  an  examining  committee,  com- 

1  Articles  7-16. 

2  Articles  17-22. 


THE  FALLOUX  LAW 


295 


295] 

posed  of  flour  members,  to  examine  candidates  for  this 
teacher’s  certificate.1  The  requirement  of  the  brevet  de 
capacite  might  be  waived,  however,  provided  the  applicant 
possessed  a  university  matriculation,  the  unrevoked  title  of 
a  minister  of  a  recognized  denomination,  or  a  certificate 
showing  that  he  had  taught  three  years  in  a  free  or  public 
school.  To  open  a  school  it  sufficed  for  a  teacher  to  declare 
his  intention  before  the  mayor  of  the  commune,  designating 
the  locality  in  which  he  proposed  to  open  his  school, 
and  stating  the  profession  which  he  had  practised  during  the 
preceding  ten  years.  This  declaration  was  also  to  be  sent 
to  the  rector  of  the  Academy.  Should  the  latter  not  raise 
any  objection  within  a  month  after  the  making  of  such  de¬ 
claration,  the  school  might  be  opened  without  further  for¬ 
mality.2  Penalties  were  provided  for  the  infraction  of 
these  regulations.  Moreover,  a  teacher  might  be  suspended 
temporarily  or  permanently  for  misconduct  or  immorality.3 4 5 

Every  commune,  unless  all  the  children  within  its  bounds 
were  able  to  receive  instruction  in  the  free  schools,  was 
obliged  to  maintain  one  or  more  primary  establishments.41 
Instructors  were  to  be  appointed  by  the  municipal  council 
of  the  commune,  and  chosen  from  lists  of  approved  teachers 
submitted  by  the  Academic  Council.  In  the  case  of  mem¬ 
bers  of  religious  congregations,  they  were  to  be  appointed 
by  their  superiors.  A  salary  of  600  francs,  payable  by  the 
commune,  was  guaranteed  to  instructors,  who  were  forbid¬ 
den  to  engage  in  any  commercial  or  industrial  enterprise.51 
Each  canton  was  to  possess  one  or  more  persons  appointed 

1  Article  46. 

5  Article  28. 

3  Articles  29-30. 

4  Article  36. 

5  Articles  32  and  38. 


296  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [296 

for  a  period  of  three  years  to  supervise  the  instruction 
within  its  bounds.  They  were  to  report  to  the  council  re¬ 
specting  the  state  and  needs  of  the  schools  within  their 
jurisdiction.  Besides  these  inspectors  provision  was  made 
for  the  supervision  of  local  schools  by  the  mayor  and  cure. 
The  ministers  of  the  various  cults  were  “  especially 
charged  ”  with  the  religious  instruction  of  the  children  of 
their  creed;  and  the  door  of  the  school  was  always  to  be 
open  to  them.1  “  Education  ”,  it  was  maintained,  “  had 
been  too  isolated  from  religion.”  6 

In  secondary  education  any  Frenchman  aged  twenty- 
five  years  was  permitted  to  open  a  school  by  making,  to 
the  rector  of  the  Academy,  declarations  similar  to  those 
prescribed  for  primary  instruction,  and  by  placing  in  his 
hands  the  following  documents:  a  certificate  showing  that 
the  applicant  had  had  five  years  experience  as  a  teacher  or 
inspector  in  secondary  education,  whether  public  or  free; 
either  a  matriculation  diploma  or  a  brevet  de  capacite;  and 
a  plan  of  the  situation  of  the  proposed  school  and  an  indica¬ 
tion  of  the  purpose  in  opening  it.  During  one  month  fol¬ 
lowing  this  formality,  the  rector,  the  prefect  or  the  public 
prosecutor  might  oppose,  in  the  interest  of  public  morality 
or  the  health  of  the  pupils,  the  opening  of  the  said  school. 
After  the  lapse  of  that  period,  provided  there  was  no  op¬ 
position,  the  school  might  be  opened  immediately.  In  case 
of  opposition  an  appeal  might  be  made  to  the  Superior 
Council.  'On  the  advice  of  the  Academic  Council,  the  min¬ 
ister  might  waive  the  requirement  of  the  certificate  of  ex¬ 
perience.3  Infraction  of  these  regulations  was  likewise 
punishable  by  fine  or  imprisonment. 

1  Article  44. 

1  Expose  des  motifs,  Michel,  op.  cit.,  p.  478. 

3  Articles  6067. 


THE  FALLOUX  LAW 


297 


297] 

Each  year  the  Minister  of  Public  Instruction,  at  the  re¬ 
quest  of  the  Academic  Council,  was  to  appoint  an  examining 
board,  consisting  of  seven  members  presided  over  by  the 
rector,  for  the  purpose  of  examining  candidates  for  the 
brevet  de  capacite  of  secondary  instruction.  A  minister  of 
the  cult  professed  by  the  candidate  might  be  called  in  to 
vote  with  the  examiners,  provided  he  was  not  already  a 
member  of  the  board.  No  certificate  of  studies  pursued 
in  a  public  school  should  be  required  of  a  candidate  either 
for  the  brevet  or  for  matriculation.1 

iSecondary  ecclesiastical  schools  existing  at  the  time  of 
promulgation  of  the  Falloux  Law  were  to  be  maintained,  on 
the  sole  condition  of  submitting  to  the  supervision  of  the 
state.  New  ones  might  not  be  established  without  the 
authorization  of  the  government.2  No  mention  was  made 
of  the  ordinance  of  1828  which  restricted  the  nurrfber  of 
pupils  in  ecclesiastical  schools  to  20,000.  But  it  was  ex¬ 
plicitly  stated  that  “  the  provisions  of  all  laws,  decrees  or 
ordinances  ”  contrary  to  the  new  law  were  abrogated.3 
Moreover,  ministers  of  the  recognized  cults  might  give 
private  instruction  to  young  men  who  were  preparing  for 
the  ecclesiastical  schools,  provided  the  number  in  each  case 
did  not  exceed  four,  and  a  declaration  was  made  beforehand 
to  the  rector  of  the  Academy. 

The  Lycees  and  Colleges  of  the  state  were  maintained  as 
before. 

The  Falloux  Law  thus  destroyed  the  monopoly  in  educa¬ 
tion.  It  decentralized  the  University,  and  deprived  the  cen¬ 
tral  council  of  much  of  its  authority.  The  clause  [art.  17]; 
which  permitted  “  individuals  or  associations’’  to  found 
and  maintain  schools  was  an  invitation  for  the  religious 

1  Articles  62-63. 

2  Article  70. 

3  Article  82. 


298  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [298 

congregations  to  enter  freely  into  education.  In  spite  of 
the  protests  of  Thiers  and  Cousin,  the  law  made  no  men¬ 
tion  of  the  Jesuits,  who  were  therefore  to  possess  the  same 
rights  as  the  other  congregations.  The  petits  seminaires 
were  enabled  to  participate  in  education  with  a  minimum  of 
interference  on  the  part  of  the  state,  a  supervision  which 
was  purely  administrative.1  Furthermore,  the  position 
that  was  given  to  the  cure  in  primary  instruction  and  to 
the  bishop  in  the  Academic  Council  assured  the  Catholics 
a  preponderant  role  in  education. 

By  reason  of  the  conditions  in  the  midst  of  which  it  was 
prepared,  the  educational  bill  of  Falloux  was  essentially  a 
compromise;  and  like  most  compromises  it  pleased  the  ex¬ 
tremes  of  neither  party.  No  sooner  were  the  general  out¬ 
lines  of  the  project  known  than  the  intransigents  of  the 
Parti  Catholique ,  led  by  Louis  Veuillot  and  the  Univers, 
denounced  it  as  a  capitulation  to  the  University.  On  the 
other  hand  the  radicals  and  the  the  partizans  of  the  Uni¬ 
versity,  the  disciples  of  eighteenth-century  philosophy,  saw: 
in  the  measure  the  destruction  of  education  by  the  state, 
the  domination  of  the  Church  in  instruction,  and  the  sur¬ 
render  of  education  to  the  priests. 

“  What  have  we  always  and  unanimously  asked?  ”  queried 
Louis  Veuillot ;  and  he  answered :  “  Liberty.  What  does 
the  bill  offer  us?  A  feeble  part  of  the  monopoly.  The  bill 
organizes  and  justifies  the  monopoly;  it  does  not  establish 
liberty.”  2  He  accused  Falloux  and  Dupanloup  of  being 
men  of  “  accommodation  ”  and  “  transaction  ” ;  and  Mon- 
talembert  with  being  wheedled  by  them  and  by  Thiers,  thus 
compromising  the  aims  of  the  Parti  Catholique ,  which 
sought  an  education  by  the  Church  that  should  be  absolutely 
free  of  all  connection  with  the  state. 

1  Cf.  Debidour,  op.  cit.,  p.  509. 

5  Michel,  op.  cit.,  p.  206. 


THE  FALLOUX  LAW 


299 


299] 

The  great  evil  of  the  Falloux  law  [he  declared]  is  that  it  is 
a  lack  of  faith.  It  proclaims  that  we  ourselves  no  longer  be¬ 
lieve  in  that  which  we  have  so  long  demanded.  But  as  I,  for 
my  part  still  believe  in  it,  as  I  believe  that  safety  is  in  the 
liberty  of  the  Church  and  is  only  there,  I  adhere  to  our  old 
doctrines,  and  I  do  not  enter  into  an  agreement  which  out¬ 
rages  them. 

He  deplored  that  the  Parti  Catholique  on  the  “  religious 
question  ”  should  fall  into  the  arms  of  the  University,  and 
urged  that,  in  order  to  save  itself,  it  should  promptly  split.1 

The  Marquis  de  Regnon  branded  the  law  as  a  deplorable 
scheme  which  sought  to  sanction,  by  the  cooperation  of  the 
bishops,  the  supremacy  of  the  “  University  over  the  Cath¬ 
olic  Church  and  over  all  religious  families.”  It  was  the 
exalting  of  the  state  above  the  faith  and  conscience  of  a 
people;  it  was  the  despotism  of  the  state  dominating  re¬ 
ligion,  morals,  laws,  customs,  education  and  beliefs;  in 
short  it  was  “  legal  communism.”  But  not  only  did  it 
“  subordinate  everything  to  the  atheistic  state  ”,  it  called 
the  bishops,  who  would  only  be  a  minority,  into  its  midst 
in  order  to  sanction  the  work  of  the  University.  “  Never  ”, 
he  declared,  “  have  faith  and  the  rights  of  the  people  been 
attacked  with  more  skill  and  with  more  hypocrisy.  Never 
have  they  been  exposed  to  more  certain  ruin.”  2  The  arch¬ 
bishops  and  bishops  of  France  became  but  the  instruments 
of  the  state  to  apply  the  irreligious  monopoly  of  the  state.3 
“  Indeed  ”,  he  declared,  “  the  bill  contains  the  complete  op- 

1  Leroy-Beaulieu,  A.,  Les  Catholiques  liberaux  (Paris,  1885),  p.  289 
et  seq.  Letter  of  Louis  Veuillot  to  the  bishop  of  Annecy,  August  2, 
1849;  cf.  Lecanuet,  op.  cit.,  ii,  p.  467. 

3  Regnon,  H.  de,  Adresse  d  Vepiscopat  franqais  au  sujet  du  projet  de 
loi  de  M.  de  Falloux  (Nantes,  July  13,  1849). 

3  Regnon,  Appel  d  S.  S.  le  Pape  Pie  ix  au  sujet  du  projet  de  loi  sur  la 
liberte  d} enseignement  presente  le  18  juin  1849  a  Vassetnblee  legislative 
par  M.  de  Falloux  (Nantes,  October  15,  1849),  p.  14. 


300  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [300 

pression  of  ithe  Catholics,  -in  taking  away  from  them,  in  a 
surreptitious  manner,  all  the  guarantees  that  the  Constitu¬ 
tion  of  1848  had  given  them.”  1 

The  bishop  of  Chartres  declared  the  law  a  violation  of 
article  IX  of  the  Constitution  of  1848.  He  feared  that  it 
would  authorize  the  establishment  of  schools  of  socialism 
and  communism,  which  would  inflame  the  towns  and  the 
departments.2  And  he  rejected  the  idea  of  a  compromise, 
perceiving  in  the  project  the  domination  of  the  University 
at  the  expense  of  the  Church.3 

But  jf  the  partizans  of  the  Parti  Catholique  feared  that 
the  bishops  would  become  slaves  of  the  University  by  sitting! 
in  the  councils  of  public  instruction,  the  partizans  of  the 
University  feared  no  less  that  the  ecclesiastics  would  domi¬ 
nate  and  “  impress  on  the  instruction  of  the  University  a 
Catholic  direction.”  4  “  The  bill  of  M.  de  Falloux  on  public 

instruction  ”,  said  an  anonymous  letter  to  the  President, 
“.  .  .  .  is  the  ruin  of  the  education  of  the  state.”  5  The 
author  appealed  to  the  “  heir  of  the  Napoleonic  traditions  ” 
and  asked  him  if  he  would  allow  injury  to  the  University, 
that  great  institution  of  his  uncle,  who  in  spite  of  his  re¬ 
gard  for  the  clergy  had  made  them  feel  the  strong  hand 
that  governed.0  “  By  the  destruction  of  the  University  and 
the  ruin  of  the  schools  of  the  state,”  “  by  the  complete 

1  Regnon,  op.  cit.,  p.  15. 

2 'Chartres,  Eveque  de,  Courtes  observations  sur  le  nouveau  pro  jet  de 
loi  concernant  Vinstruction  publique  (Chartres,  1849),  p.  7. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  14. 

4  Metz-Noblat,  M.  A.  de,  Des  rapports  de  Veglise  et  de  Vetat  (Paris, 
1849),  p.  16. 

8  Lettre  d’un  bourgeois  de  Paris  au  president  de  la  republique  touchant 
le  pro  jet  de  loi  de  M.  de  Falloux  sur  V instruction  publique  (Paris,  1849), 
p.  1. 

6  Ibid.,  p.  5. 


THE  FALLOUX  LAW 


301 


301] 

abandonment  of  public  instruction  into  the  hands  of  the 
clergy  ”,  “  the  bill  of  M.  de  Falloux,  by  a  road  indirect  in 
appearance  but  none  the  less  sure,  advances  the  counter¬ 
revolution.”  1  But  not  only  did  it  annihilate  lay  education, 
it  left  the  field  open  to  the  invasion  of  the  religious  congre¬ 
gations.  “  Already  ....  the  congregations  flock  before 
the  council  of  state  and  the  council  of  the  University,  re¬ 
questing,  by  an  ingenious  subterfuge,  to  be  authorized,  no 
longer  as  congregations,  but  as  establishments  of  public 
utility.”  2 

The  opposition  to  the  bill  continued  after  it  had  been  in¬ 
troduced  into  the  Assembly  on  the  14th  of  January,  1850. 
Barthellemy  Saint- Hilaire,  in  a  speech  that  lasted  through  two 
sessions,  combated  the  proposed  law  on  the  ground  that  it 
weakened  the  surveillance  of  the  state  as  promised  by  the 
constitution.  In  view  of  the  subversive  doctrines  of  social¬ 
ism  that  were  abroad,  he  feared  that  the  measure  did  not 
afford  sufficient  safeguards.  “  You  assist  these  fatal  doc¬ 
trines  ”,  he  declared.3  His  objections  were  four-fold:  it 
destroyed  the  University;  it  weakened  the  influence  of  the 
state;  it  “  confiscated  ”  primary  instruction  for  the  benefit 
of  the  congregations  and  of  the  clergy;  and  it  gave  the 
Jesuits  a  place  in  ‘secondary  education.'4 

Victor  Hugo  came  forward  as  the  champion  of  the  liberty 
of  instruction  as  well  as  of  the  surveillance  of  the  state, 
which  he  wished  purely  and  exclusively  laic.  Far  from 
being  opposed  to  religious  instruction,  he  declared  that  he 
“  ardently  wished  ”  it,  but  it  was  the  religious  instruction 
of  the  Church  and  not  that  of  a  party.  Consequently  he 

1  Lettre  d’un  bourgeois  de  Paris,  p.  7. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  13. 

3  Moniteur,  January  15,  1850. 

4  Ibid.,  January  16. 


302  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [302 

would  admit  neither  bishops  nor  their  delegates  into  the 
Superior  Council  or  the  Academic  Councils.  He  perceived 
in  the  proposed  law  an  instrument  to  be  seized  by  the  “  cler¬ 
ical  party  ” ;  and  he  thereupon  drew  a  picture  of  obscurant¬ 
ism  blighting  the  intellectual  life  of  France  as  in  Italy  and 
Spain.1 

Monseigneur  Parisis,  the  bishop  of  Langres,  after  trac¬ 
ing  the  history  of  education  in  France  since  the  eighteenth 
century,  stigmatized  the  University  as  “  only  the  accomplish¬ 
ment  of  the  ideas  of  Talleyrand,  Condorcet,  Danton  and 
Robespierre.  .  .  To  that  fact  he  attributed  the  failure 
of  the  education  of  the  University,  which  was  responsible 
for  all  the  unsound  theories  of  the  age.  Religion  therefore 
had  no  need  of  the  University,  which  was  incapable  of 
founding  anything  stable  in  France;  rather  it  was  the  Uni¬ 
versity  that  had  need  of  religion.  For  religion  required 
nothing  but  liberty  to  accomplish  her  work.  The  proposed 
law  was  consequently  not  what  the  Church  would  have 
made.  Would  he  therefore  reject  it?  “If  the  project  is 
presented  to  us  as  a  favor,  I  reject  it  ”,  he  replied;  “  if  it  is 
proposed  to  us  as  an  opportunity  of  showing  our  devotion,  I 
accept  it.”  2  The  episcopate  was  too  hostile  to  the  bill  to 
allow  him  to  endorse  it  in  more  unqualified  terms. 

But  if  the  representative  of  the  episcopate  in  the  Legisla¬ 
tive  Assembly  hesitated  to  accept  the  proposed  law,  it  was 
otherwise  with  the  famed  leader  of  the  Parti  Calholique,  the 
Comte  de  Moritalembert.  Since  he  had  first  entered  the 
Assembly  chamber,  he  declared,  he  had  supported  every  pro¬ 
posal  that  had  been  made  to  stem  the  invasion  of  socialism. 
But  he  considered  all  other  remedies  futile  without  giving 
“  religious  training  ”  to  the  country.  This  could  only  be 
accomplished  by  restoring  the  influence  of  religion  to  educa- 

1  Moniteur,  January  16,  1850. 

2  Ibid. 


THE  FALLOUX  LAW 


303 


303] 

tion  by  means  of  liberty.  “  That  ”,  he  affirmed,”  we  have 
attempted  to  do  in  our  law.”  Like  the  bishop  of  Langres  he 
attributed  the  evil  ultimately  to  the  deistic  influence  of  the 
eighteenth  century  which  had  created  a  society  “  disdainful 
of  all  spiritual  succour.” 

Men  thought  they  were  destroying  religious  faith,  and  with¬ 
out  wishing  it,  they  have  destroyed  social  faith . Do 

you  know  what  has  been  the  result  of  this?  .  .  .  without  de¬ 
siring  it  the  people  have  been  given  socialism  for  religion; 
because  it  is  necessary  for  the  people  to  have  religion,  which 
you  all  acknowledge.  When  the  old  religion  has  been  taken 
away  from  them  .  .  .  ,  faith  in  the  God-become-man  of  the 
Gospel  ....  there  has  been  substituted  faith  in  the  man- 
made-God  of  socialism. 

Socialism  he  defined  as  “  Man  believing  himself  God  in  the 
sense  that  he  believes  himself  capable  of  destroying  evil  and 
suffering.”  The  great  need  of  the  time  he  declared  to  be 
respect,  “  respect  for  law,  respect  for  order,  respect  for 
authority,  respect  for  society  and  respect  for  property.” 
That  is  what  the  Church  teaches,  he  affirmed. 

The  project  of  Falloux,  he  contended,  afforded  liberty  as 
the  constitution  called  for  it.  “  We  have  been  denounced  ”, 
he  said,  “  we  the  oldest  advocates  of  liberty  of  instruction 
have  been  denounced  as  having  betrayed  the  cause  of  liberty 
of  instruction  and  the  interest  of  religion.  .  .  .”  “  We 

have  been  reproached  from  the  first  with  not  having  given 
absolute  liberty.”  That  indeed  he  had  asked  for  in  the 
Constituent  Assembly,  liberty,  complete  and  unlimited.  But 
it  had  been  denied  them,  and  nobody  then  complained.  The 
constitution  had  placed  certain  conditions  and  restrictions 
on  liberty.  These  conditions  they  had  respected,  since  they 
could  not  go  against  the  Constitution.  Furthermore,  he 
complained,  we  have  been  reproached  with  having  com¬ 
promised  with  the  education  of  the  state. 


304  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [304 

We  have  been  upbraided  with  having  made  an  alliance  in 
which  we  should  be  dupes  and  victims;  we  have  been  up¬ 
braided  with  having  concluded,  a  fact  of  which  we  are  proud, 
an  honorable  peace  instead  of  perpetuating  the  strife,  and, 
after  having  guaranteed  liberty  for  ourselves  and  for  others, 
with  having  accepted  for  religion  a  real  part  in  instruction. 
In  a  word,  we  have  been  reproached  with  having  substituted 
alliance  for  conflict.1 

But  in  face  of  the  menace  of  socialism  he  declared  that  the 
need  of  the  country  was  peace,  not  war.  For  that  reason 
they  had  taken  advantage  of  the  conciliatory  disposition  of 
their  former  adversaries  2  and  entered  into  a  law  of  trans¬ 
action. 

Thiers  defended  the  law  against  the  charge  of  having 
surrendered  education  to  the  Church,  as  Montalembert  had 
vindicated  it  against  the  imputation  of  having  compromised 
with  the  University.  After  the  difficult  and  painful  role 
which  he  had  played  in  France  for  two  years,  he  declared 
that  he  was  disdainful  of  the  charge  of  apostasy  which  had 
been  Brought  against  him.  On  one  point,  however,  he 
acknowledged  that  perhaps  he  had  changed. 

In  the  face  of  the  enormous  perils  that  have  menaced,  and 
continue  to  menace,  society  [he  said]  I  have  desired  to  re¬ 
unite  its  various  defenders,  to  cause  the  quarrels  to  cease 
between  the  partizans  of  the  state  and  those  of  the  Church, 
because  both,  if  they  understand  their  interests  and  their 
duties,  ought  to-day  to  be  champions  of  society. 

He  avowed  that  he  had  never  been  in  favor  of  liberty  of 
instruction;  rather  he  had  feared  it.  But  the  circumstances 
had  changed.  “  I  ask  very  frankly,  Do  you  know  what  the 
partizans  of  the  Church  and  those  of  the  state  mean  to  me? 

1  Moniteur,  January  18,  1850.  Session  of  January  17. 

2  The  allusion  is  to  men  like  Thiers. 


THE  FALLOUX  LAW 


305 


305] 

They  are  the  champions  of  society,  of  the  society  which  I 
believe  is  in  peril;  and  I  have  held  out  my  hand  to  them.” 

The  Church,  he  declared,  might  well  have  objected  against 
the  constitution  and  said :  “  I  do  not  wish  to  be  inspected.” 
But  on  the  contrary  the  clergy  said  : 

I  will  be  inspected  like  all  the  other  establishments ;  and  that 
day  the  contract  had  been  signed :  peace  was  made.  Yes ! 
that  is  the  great  concession,  if  concession  there  is.  Yes !  the 
petits  scminaires  will  be  a  university.  They  will  likewise  be 
able  to  instruct  in  all  subjects.  I  defy  you  to  show  me  in  the 
law  any  other  real  concession  than  that.  As  to  the  presence 
of  the  clergy  ....  whether  in  the  Superior  Council  of  the 
University  or  in  the  Academic  Councils,  Monseigneur,  the 
bishop  of  Langres  was  right  in  saying  it  is  not  a  favor,  it  is 
a  trust. 

They  had  conferred  no  favor  on  the  Church  in  granting 
liberty  of  instruction,  he  declared,  for  that  was  a  right  which 
the  Constitution  had  accorded  them.  The  only  danger  that 
he  could  foresee  [and  this  ultimately  proved  to  be  a  very 
real  one]  was  that  the  petits  scminaires  woulld  be  enabled  to 
establish  themselves  in  rivalry  with  the  institutions  of  the 
state.  The  University,  in  spite  of  what  his;  opponents  said, 
had  been  maintained.  In  the  Superior  Council  eight  mem¬ 
bers  out  of  the  twenty-four  belonged  to  the  University, 
whereas  the  Church  was  represented  by  only  four  bishops. 
Surely  therefore  the  framers  of  the  law  could  not  be  accused 
of  having  been  partial  to  the  Church.  The  charge  had  been 
brought  against  the  law  that  it  would  permit  the  Jesuits  to 
return.  “  Well  ”,  he  retorted,  “  I  ask  you  in  the  name  of 
your  principles,  how  you  are  going  to  prevent  the  Jesuits 
from  entering  into  education?”.1  “It  has  sometimes  been 


1  The  discussion  was  not  unrelieved  by  touches  of  humor.  While 


306  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [306 

said :  The  University  represents  philosophy,  the  Church  re¬ 
ligion.  Well,  for  my  part,  I  make  known  to  you  the  whole 
secret  of  my  sentiments :  I  believe,  I  hope,  that  religion  and 
philosophy  can  he  made  to  live  together.”  1 

While  the  law  was  being  debated  within  the  Assembly 
the  opposition  to  it  continued  in  the  Catholic  press. 

When  M.  Thiers  speaks  of  making  religion  and  philosophy 
live  together  [said  the  Univers]  everybody  knows  very  well 
what  philosophy  is  meant.  It  is  the  anti-Christian  philosophy 
to  which  they  wish  to  compel  religion  to  sell  itself  and  to  sur¬ 
render  the  souls  of  Catholic  youth.  ...  If  the  party  of 
order  cling  to  philosophy,  it  must  leave  the  Church ;  if  it 
wishes  the  protection  of  the  Church,  it  must  renounce  its 
philosophy. 2 

Is  the  omnipotence  of  the  state  the  source  of  all  the  political 
and  social  disorders  against  which  France  struggles  at  this 
moment,  or  is  it  not?  .  .  .  They  speak  of  peace,  of  a  treaty 
of  peace;  they  forget  only  one  thing,  namely,  that  a  treaty  of 
peace  is  absolutely  impossible  between  two  principles  which 
are  diametrically  opposed  to  each  other.  Enemies  of  this 
sort  can,  indeed,  if  interest  dictates,  suspend  hostilities,  agree 
upon  an  armistice ;  but  make  peace,  never !  3 

As  Catholics  [said  the  H ermine  of  Nantes]  we  reject  this! 
bill  because  we  believe  that  it  is  subversive  of  the  doctrines 
of  our  Church  and  injurious  to  the  religious  sentiment  of 
the  vast  majority  of  Frenchmen.  ...  No  citizen,  no  Catholic, 

Thiers  was  defending  the  law  a  member  of  the  left  interrupted :  Passes 
aux  Jesuit es. 

Thiers :  Je  vais  passer  aux  Jesuit  es. 

Voice  at  left:  C’est  fait:  vous  y  etes  passe  aux  Jesuites. 

Thiers :  Out,  c’est  convenu.  Je  suis  un  Jesuit;  d’accord. 

Montalembert :  Je  ne  suis  done  plus  le  seul  dans  I’Assemblee.  Moni- 
teur,  February  24,  1850. 

1  Moniteur,  January  19,  1850. 

3  Univers,  January  30,  1850. 

3  Ibid.,  February  6,  1850. 


THE  FALLOUX  LAW 


307 


307] 

can  consent  to  or  aid  in  this  pretended  pacification  between 
the  Church  and  the  University,  between  truth  and  error,  be¬ 
tween  good  and  evil,  between  order  and  anarchy.  The  moral 
impossibility  of  the  proposed  law  is  of  the  same  nature  as  that 
which,  in  1791,  resulted  from  the  'Civil  Constitution  of  the 
Clergy.  The  lay  authorities  intend,  to-day  as  then,  to  violate 
the  conscience  of  Catholics  by  constraining  them  to  do  what 
they  ought  not  to  do,  and  by  themselves  organizing  moral  and 
religious  instruction.1 

It  is  all  over!  [said  the  Esperance,  courrier  de  Nancy].  The 
division  of  the  Parti  Catholique  has  been  proclaimed  at  the 
tribune  by  its  former  chief.  M.  de  Montalembert  complains 
in  bitter  terms  of  the  opposition  which  he  has  met  in  what 
he  calls  his  treaty  of  reconciliation  with  the  party  of  the 
University.  ...  It  is  then  true,  we  no  longer  fight  under  the 
same  flag,  devoted  soldiers  of  an  intrepid  leader.  .  .  .  We  are 
an  army  disbanded,  dispersed,  and  our  division  is  the  laughing¬ 
stock  of  the  whole  world.  Our  adversaries  are  able  to  laugh 
and  make  merry  over  the  disaster  to  our  cause.  .  .  .2 

Indeed  the  C orrespondant  affirmed  that  “  a  single  one  of  the 
religious  journals,  the  Ami  de  la  Religion ”  had  shown  it¬ 
self  “  fully  satisfied  with  the  bill/”  3  But  even  the  satisfac¬ 
tion  of  the  Ami  de  la  Religion  was  not  without  its  qualifica¬ 
tions.  “Does  the  bill  satisfy  us  completely?”  it  asked. 
“  Have  we  ever  said  so?  If  it  had  been  thus,  would  the 
law  be  called  a  compromise  ?  ”  4 

Notwithstanding  the  hostility  to  the  project  of  Falloux: 
and  his  colleagues,  the  bill,  after  the  third  reading  in  the 
Assembly  passed  by  399  votes  against  237  on  the  15th  of 
March,  1850. 5  That  the  opposition  on  the  part  of  the 

1  Cited  from  Univers  of  February  7,  1850. 

2  Ibid.,  January  30,  1850. 

3  C orrespondant,  January  25,  1850. 

4  Ami  de  la  religion,  March  7,  1850. 

5  Michel,  op.  cit.,  p.  441. 


oqS  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [308 

episcopate  was  strong  is  revealed  by  the  fact  that  the  bishop 
of  Langres  abstained  from  voting.  Nor  did  the  opposition 
cease  after  the  law  had  passed. 

We  wished  to  have  it  defeated  [said  the  Univers ]  for  we  be¬ 
lieve  it  bad.  We  have  not  even  been  able  to  improve  it.  It 
comes  from  the  ballot  full  of  all  sorts  of  obscurities,  of  dis¬ 
advantages,  of  every  danger  that  we  have  pointed  out.  It 
puts  the  Church  in  a  difficult  and  dangerous  situation ;  it  con¬ 
solidates  the  University;  it  retards,  for  a  very  long  time,  per¬ 
haps,  the  day  of  liberty,  the  dawn  of  which  we  had  at  one 
time  hoped  to  welcome.1 

They  have  not  given  us  an  atom  of  liberty  [said  the! 
National,  of  the  framers  of  the  law].  Instead  of  obeying  the 
constitution,  which  decreed  liberty  of  instruction,  M.  Thiers 
and  M.  de  Montalembert  have  done  only  one  thing:  they  have 
taken  the  direction  of  education  away  from  the  state  to  give 
it  ....  to  the  congregations.2 

To  maintain  the  poor  and  the  laboring  classes  in  ignor¬ 
ance,  [declared  the  Democratic  Padfique ]  such  is  the  avowed 
purpose  of  the  law ;  to  put  their  instruction  within  the  hands 
of  the  clergy.3 

....  the  new  law  [said  the  Abbe  Bautain]  restricts  the 
liberty  of  the  Church.  The  Constitution  of  1848  has  cast  one 
more  bond  of  servitude;  for  before,  the  pe'tits  seminaires  and 
especially  the  grands  were  outside  the  inspection  of  the 
University  and  dependent  only  upon  the  bishops.  .  .  .  The 
new  law  submits  all  the  ecclesiastical  schools,  without  any 
exception,  to  the  surveillance  of  the  state  exercised  by  the 
University;  and  nothing  compensates  for  the  added  subjec¬ 
tion.  The  idea  of  the  majority  who  made  the  law  has  been 
quite  simply  to  impede  the  spiritual  power  a  little  more.  .  .  .4 

1  Univers,  March  17,  1850. 

2  Ibid. 

3  Ibid . 

4  Monitenr  catholique,  June  11,  1850. 


THE  FALLOUX  LA  W 


309 


309] 

So  strong  indeed  was  the  opposition  to  the  new  law 
amongst  the  Catholics  that  Pius  IX  had  to  intervene  in  its 
favor.  The  Church,  he  declared,  should,  in  the  interest  of 
Christian  society,  endure  some  sacrifice  consistent  with  its 
existence  and  its  duties.1  Nevertheless,  it  was  not  until  the 
congregational  schools,  the  establishment  of  which  the  law1 
permitted,  met  with  success  that  the  voice  of  Catholic  op¬ 
position  was  silenced.2  After  ten  years’  experience  of  the 
law  the  Abbe  Lacordaire  could  say,  “  The  law  on  the 
liberty  of  instruction  has  been  the  edict  of  Nantes  of  the 
nineteenth  century.”  3 

The  effect  of  the  Falloux  Law  was  quite  different  from 
what  its  adversaries  had  prophesied.  It  brought  neither  the 
destruction  of  the  University  nor  the  domination  of  the 
Church  in  education.  Lay  education  continued  as  before. 
But  France  was  soon  covered  with  ecclesiastical  schools  in 
competition  with  those  of  the  University.4  The  Falloux 
Law  thus  broke  the  unity  of  French  education  which  the 
University  had  attempted  to  establish.  By  splitting  the 
French  youth  into  two  sections,  each  with  a  different  orien¬ 
tation,  the  fruition  of  the  instruction  of  the  state  and  that 
of  the  Church,  it  continued  the  division  that  had  been  in¬ 
troduced  into  French  life  by  the  philosophy  and  the  Revolu¬ 
tion  of  the  eighteenth  century.  For  this  reason  it  has  been 
called  “  one  of  the  decisive  events  of  the  nineteenth 
century.”  5 

1  Mourret,  L’Eglise  contemporaine,  pt.  i,  p.  383;  cf.  Lecanuet,  op.  cit., 
ii,  p.  494. 

2  Melun,  op.  cit.,  pp.  77-78. 

3Foisset,  op.  cit.,  ii,  p.  198;  cf.  Melun,  op.  cit.,  p.  78. 

4  Seignobos  ct  al.,  op.  cit.,  pp.  181-182;  Lavisse,  op.  cit.,  pp.  149-150. 

5  Ibid. 


CHAPTER  VIII 


The  Catholics  and  the  Coup  D’Etat 

Louis  Napoleon  oruce  elected  President  of  the  Republic 
had  no  intention  of  surrendering  the  reins  of  the  power  at 
the  end  of  four  years  as  the  Constitution  required.1 
Thiers,  on  whom  he  relied  for  counsel,  advised  him  “  to 
imitate  with  some  embellishments  American  simplicity.”  2 
But  such  a  conception  of  his  office  was  far  from  the  thoughts 
of  the  new  President.  Almost  immediately  “  he  assumed 
the  uniform,  surrounded  himself  with  aides-de-camps,  and 
became  ithe  Prince  President  and  Monsignor.”  3  In  the 
addresses  (that  from  time  to  time  he  was  called  upon  to 
make  in  various  parts  of  the  country,  he  spoke  less  as  a 
president  of  a  Republic  than  as  the  heir  of  Napoleon  and 
of  the  Empire,  more  as  a  divine-right  monarch  than  as  the 
simple  elect  of  the  people.  Speaking  at  Amiens  on  the  19th 
of  July,  1849,  he  stated  that  he  attributed  the  “  flattering 
and  enthusiastic  ”  reception  which  he  had  received  much 
more  to  his  name  than  to  himself.  “  This  name  ”,  he  con¬ 
tinued,  “  as  France  was  aware  in  giving  me  her  suffrage, 
represented  not  only  conquest  and  war,  but  also  order  and 
peace.” 

1  Montalembert  to  Senior,  Senior,  Conversations  with  Thiers,  i,  p.  364. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  43. 

3  Cf.  Senior,  Correspondence  and  Conversations  of  A.  de  Tocqueville 
with  N.  W.  Senior,  i,  p.  208.  De  Tocqueville:  “He  (Louis  Napoleon) 
is  essentially  prince;  the  role  of  Washington  would  have  had  no  charm 
for  him.  ,He  has  believed  for  twenty  years  that  it  is  his  destiny  to  be 
the  permanent  ruler  of  France,  and  his  rashness  is  equal  to  his  confi¬ 
dence.” 


310 


[3io 


3i i ]  THE  CATHOLICS  AND  THE  COUP  D'ETAT  31 1 

A  whole  system  triumphed  on  the  10th  of  December  [he  af¬ 
firmed  in  his  message  to  the  legislative  assembly  of  the  31st 
of  October,  1849].  For  the  name  of  Napoleon  is  in  itself 
an  entire  program.  It  denotes:  at  home,  order,  authority,  re¬ 
ligion,  well-being  of  the  people;  abroad,  national  dignity.  It 
is  this  policy,  inaugurated  by  my  election,  which,  with  the  sup¬ 
port  of  the  Assembly  and  that  of  the  people,  I  wish  to  make 
triumphant.1 

Considering  himself  therefore  as  the  heir  of  the  Empire 
and  as  the  rightful  ruler  of  France,  he  posed  as  the  savior 
of  the  country  from  the  perils  of  socialism.  “  What  is  it 
that  to-day  prevents  our  prosperity  from  developing  and 
bearing  its  fruits?”  asked  the  Prince  President.  “It  is 
because  the  characteristic  of  our  age  is  to  allow  ourselves  to 
be  seduced  by  chimeras  instead  of  attaching  ourselves  to 
reality.”  2 

This  system  of  agitation  [said  he  referring  to  socialism] 
maintains  in  the  country  unrest  and  distrust  which  create 
poverty.  It  is  necessary  that  it  cease.  It  is  time  for  the 
good  to  be  reassured  and  the  wicked  to  tremble.  The  Re¬ 
public  has  no  more  implacable  enemies  than  those  men  who, 
perpetuating  disorder,  compel  us  to  change  France  into  a 
vast  camp,  our  projects  of  amelioration  and  of  progress  into 
preparations  for  defense  and  strife.3 

Accordingly  he  represented  himself  as  the  stabilizer  of 
society;  and,  in  order  to  capture  the  Republicans,  he  added 
the  word  Republic.  As  the  first  Napoleon  conserved  the 
benefits  of  the  First  Republic,  so  he  was  to  secure  those  of 
the  Second. 

1  Oeuvres ,  iii,  Oct.  31,  1849. 

2  Ibid.,  Voyage  de  Rouen,  Aug.  11,  1849. 

3  Ibid.,  Proclamation  au  peuple  franqais,  June  13,  1849. 


312  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [312 

.  .  .  .  after  ’89,  it  was  not  for  the  ideas  of  Baboeuf  or  of 
some  other  such  sectarian  that  society  was  overturned,  but  for 
the  abolition  of  privileges,  for  equality  before  the  law,  for 
the  admission  of  all  to  official  positions.  Ah  well !  still  to-day 
it  is  not  for  the  application  of  impracticable  theories  or  of 
imaginary  advantages  that  the  revolution  has  been  accom¬ 
plished,  but  to  have  a  government  which,  the  result  of  the 
will  of  all,  may  be  more  sensitive  to  the  needs  of  the  people, 
which  may  be  able  to  direct,  without  dynastic  preoccupations, 
the  destinies  of  the  country.1 

Such  he  regarded  as  the  “  mission  attached  to  the  great 
name  ”  which  he  bore.2  “  France  will  not  perish  in  my 
hands  ”,  he  was  assuring  the  country.3 

But  besides  seeking  to  curry  favor  by  posing  as  the 
champion  of  society  and  of  the  Republic  against  socialism, 
Louis  Napoleon  sought  to  gain  the  support  of  the  army. 
He  realized  that  his  ambitions!  could  never  he  attained  with¬ 
out  the  cooperation  of  the  military  power.  Accordingly  he 
paid  court  to  the  military  instincts  of  the  country  and  of 
France. 

Here  the  military  spirit  exists  still  in  all  its  strength  [he  de¬ 
clared  at  Saumur]  and,  God  be  praised,  it  is  not  nearly  ex¬ 
tinguished.  Do  not  forget  that  this  military  spirit  is,  in 
times  of  crisis,  the  safeguard  of  the  country.  During  the 
First  Revolution,  the  Emperor  said  that,  while  all  parties  were 
dishonoring  and  slaying  each  other  by  their  excess,  the 
national  honor  took  refuge  in  our  armies.  Let  us  then  lend 
all  our  efforts  to  keep  intact  and  to  develop  this  military 
spirit;  for,  be  assured,  if  the  products  of  the  arts  and  of  the 
sciences  merit  our  admiration,  there  is  something  that  merits 
it  more :  it  is  the  religion  of  duty,  it  is  devotion  to  the  flag.4 

1  Oeuvres,  iii,  p.  80. 

2  Ibid.,  April  10,  To  Prince  Napoleon  Jerome. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  210,  June  1,  1851,  at  Dijon. 

4  Ibid.,  Voyage  de  Nantes  a  Saumur,  July  31,  1849. 


313]  the  CATHOLICS  AND  THE  COUP  D’ETAT  313 

Moreover  by  means  of  reviews,  eulogies  of  the  military 
feats  of  the  grand  days  of  the  Empire,  distributions  to  sold¬ 
iers,  the  Prince  President  sought  to  rally  the  rank  and  file 
of  the  army  to  his  cause.  Officers  who  proved  intractable 
to  seduction  were  replaced  wherever  possible.1 

The  support  that  Louis  Napoleon  received  from  the 
country  at  large  and  from  the  army  was  doubtless  the 
chief  factor  in  enabling  him  to  overturn  the  Republic.  But 
one  other  force  of  no  inconsiderable  importance  had  to  be 
reckoned  with ;  and  that  was  the  Church,  What  would  its 
attitude  be  to  the  overthrow  of  republican  institutions  ? 
We  have  seen  its  strength  after  the  proclamation  of  the  Re¬ 
public  and  in  the  struggle  against  the  radicals.  We  have 
beheld  the  anxiety  of  Louis  Napoleon  to  capture  its  sup¬ 
port  in  his  candidacy  for  the  Presidency,  and  afterwards 
for  his  rule.  We  have  no  need,  therefore,  to  be  surprised 
that  he  should  seek  its  sanction  for  the  destruction  of  the 
Republic.  If  the  ecclesiastical  leaders  could  be  made  to 
behold  in  him  a  means  of  accomplishing  their  aims,  the 
establishment  of  what  they  regarded  as  the  ultimate  bases 
of  society,  religion,  the  family  and  property,  would  that  not 
greatly  aid  him  in  rising  to  supreme  power?  Such  an  arch¬ 
plotter  as  he  could  not  fail  to  perceive  the  advantage  that 
would  thus  accrue  to  him.  He  desired  the  Catholics,  who 
had  already  become  alarmed  at  the  progress  of  socialism,2 
to  see  in  him  the  sole  savior  of  the  country  from  the  menace 
that  threatened  it.3 

1  Seignobos,  La  Revolution  de  1848  (Paris,  1921),  pp.  190  et  seq.;  de  la 
Gorce,  op.  cit.,  ii,  pp.  360  et  seq.,  365  ct  seq. 

2  “  Human  wisdom,”  said  the  Archbishop  of  Paris,  “  is  at  an  end ; 
the  whole  of  society  reels  like  a  drunken  man  on  the  edge  of  the  abyss ; 
the  old  social  order  is  collapsing.”  Barrot,  op.  cit.,  iv.  p.  207. 

3  Mourret,  Fernand,  L’Eglise  contemporaine  (1823-1878),  (Paris, 
1922),  p.  384. 


314  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [314 

Accordingly,  we  find  Louis  Napoleon  in  his  various 
speeches  throughout  the  country  flattering  the  Church,  and 
the  clergy  in  turn  recognizing  in  him  the  bulwark  of  society. 
“  Let  us  establish  the  religious  principle  ”,  declared  he, 
“  without  abandoning  any  of  the  gains  of  the  revolution, 
and  we  shall  save  the  country  in  spite  of  the  parties,  the 
ambitions  and  even  the  imperfections  which  our  institutions 
may  contain.”  1  At  Troyes,  whither  he  had  gone  at  the 
end  of  April,  1849,  to  distribute  flags  to  the  National  Guard, 
the  bishop,  Monseigneur  Coeur,  “  addressed  and  flattered 
him  as  though  he  already  had  the  crown  on  his  head.”  2 

These  flags  which  you  are  about  to  receive  [said  the  bishop 
to  the  National  Guard]  have  been  blessed  in  the  presence  of 
the  elect  of  the  nation,  the  nephew  of  the  Emperor  whose 
name  is  for  France  the  symbol  of  order,  of  victory  and  of 
public  prosperity,  in  the  presence  of  the  elect  of  the  nation, 
who  in  a  few  months  has  won  the  esteem  of  the  whole  of 
Europe  and  who  has  justified  the  votes  and  the  hopes  of 
France  by  the  wisdom  of  his  government.  ...  If  the  country 
should  one  day  be  threatened,  recollect,  and  it  will  make  you 
invincible,  that  the  hopes  and  votes  of  France  have  been  held1 
by  the  nephew  of  the  Emperor;  for  there  is  in  the  blood  of 
heroes  a  secret  and  mysterious  virtue  that  communicates  itself 
to  all  that  it  touches. 

The  President  then  profusely  thanked  the  bishop  for  his 
flattery.3  In  the  beginning  of  June  1850,  Louis  Napoleon 
opened  the  railway  from  Creil  to  Saint-Quentin.  At  the 
latter  place  his  first  act  was  to  attend  the  Cathedral  to  hear 
Mass.  The  bishop  of  Soissons,  who  received  him,  wel¬ 
comed  him  with  an  address  : 

1  Oeuvres,  iii.  Message  to  the  legislative  assembly,  Oct.  31,  1849. 

2  Barrot,  op.  cit.,  iii,  p.  248. 

3 Thirria,  H.,  Napoleon  Hi  avant  Vempire,  2nd  ed.  (Paris,  1895),  ii, 
p.  69. 


315]  the  CATHOLICS  AND  THE  COUP  D’ETAT  315 

This  act  of  faith  honors  you  [he  declared]  ....  In  wish¬ 
ing  to  hallow  this  occasion  by  homage  rendered  to  God,  you 
have  once  more  shown  how  much  you  are  always  pleased  to 
seek  the  help  of  heaven  in  all  that  which  can  contribute  to 
the  honor  and  to  the  happiness  of  France.  “  Monseigneut 
.  .  .  .”  [replied  the  Prince]  “  with  you  I  realize  more  and 
more  that  the  power  of  religion  is  indispensable  for  establish¬ 
ing  the  welfare  of  the  country.  I  am  delighted  that  you  have 
no  objection  to  blessing  my  efforts,  and  I  beseech  you  to  sup¬ 
plicate  heaven  for  their  success.”  1 

At  Rheims  the  Archbishop  complimented  him  and  thanked 
him  for  the  service  which  he  had  rendered  order  and  re¬ 
ligion.  Louis  Napoleon  replied  by  saying  that  he  could  be 
counted  on  to  honor  religion,  and  to  defend  the  equally 
sacred  cause  of  society,  of  civilization  and  of  order.2  On 
the  3rd  of  September  the  President  set  out  for  a  naval  review' 
at  'Cherbourg.  At  Evreux,  en  route,  the  bishop,  Monseigneur 
Olivier,  informed  him  that  “  France,  in  offering  him  its 
acknowledgment,  merely  performed  an  act  of  gratitude. 

Religion  and  the  family  [he  replied]  are,  with  authority  and 
order,  the  bases  of  all  durable  society.  The  constant  aim  of 
my  efforts  is  to  consolidate  these  essential  elements  of  the 
welfare  and  of  the  prosperity  of  the  country.  I  am  pleased 
with  the  cooperation  of  all  the  eminent  men  of  the  country 
and  with  yours  in  particular.  I  thank  you  for  the  assurance 
which  you  give  me  in  the  name  of  your  clergy,  whose  good 
will  I  appreciate.3 

At  Caen  the  bishop  of  Bayeux  said:  “  If  heaven  grant  our 
desires,  Monsignor,  religion  and  France  will  forever  bless 
your  government . ” 14  In  the  Cathedral  at  Coutances 

1  Thirria,  op.  cit.,  ii,  pp.  224-225. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  300. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  305. 

4  Oeuvres,  iii,  p.  152  ;  Thirria,  op.  cit.,  ii,  p.  306. 


?)1 6  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [316 

the  bishop  congratulated  France  and  religion  on  the  advent 
of  Louis  Napoleon,  and  announced  that  it  was  the  wish  of 
the  clergy  that  he  should  retain  his  power.1  On  the  25th 
of  October,  1850,  Louis  Napoleon  presided,  in  the  Chapel 
of  Saint-Cloud,  at  the  ceremony  of  conferring  the  Cardinal’s 
hat  on  the  Apostolic  Nuncio,  and  on  the  Archbishops  of 
Toulouse,  Rheims  and  Besangon.  In  addressing  the  clergy 
he  requested  them  not  to  forget  him  in  their  prayers.  To 
the  Ablegate  he  said : 

.  .  .  .  I  have  seen  with  an  extreme  satisfaction  his  Holiness 
allot  three  Cardinal’s  hats  to  France.  It  is  a  new  proof  of 
the  especial  esteem  of  the  Sovereign  Pontiff  for  the  French 
clergy,  this  clergy  always  so  marked  by  its  merit,  its  virtues 
and  its  devotion  to  the  great  principles  on  which  the  Catholic 
religion  rests.  I  esteem  it  an  honor  to  preside  at  a  ceremony 
where  the  spiritual  power  shows  itself  in  perfect  accord  with 
the  temporal.  ...  I  beseech  your  excellency  to  place  at  the 
feet  of  the  Head  of  the  Church  the  sincere  acknowledgment 
of  my  veneration.2 

On  the  6th  of  July,  1851,  he  visited  Beauvais  to  unveil  a 
statue  of  Jeanne  Haohette.  His  first  act  there  was  to  visit 
the  Cathedral  where  he  was  greeted  by  the  bishop,  Mon¬ 
seigneur  Gignoux. 

On  entering  this  city  so  honored  by  your  presence  [said  the 
bishop]  your  first  step  is  for  God  whom  you  come  to 
worship  in  his  temple,  your  first  word  one  of  prayer,  your 
first  act  one  of  homage  paid  to  the  ancient  and  holy  law  of 
the  Sabbath.  May  you  be  blessed  because  of  this  noble  ex¬ 
ample.  Whatever  the  future  may  be,  the  Church  shall  re¬ 
peat  with  pleasure  that  under  your  government  the  august 

1  Thirria,  op.  cit.,  ii,  p.  30S. 

2  Ibid.,  pp.  349-350- 


317]  THE  CATHOLICS  AND  THE  COUP  D'ETAT  317 

head  of  Catholicism  has  been  restored  to  the  capital  of  the 
Christian  world,  and  education  has  been  freed  from  the  re¬ 
strictions  that  prevented  the  development  so  necessary  for  re¬ 
ligious  principles.  .  .  } 


Thus  did  Louis  Napoleon  prepare  for  the  support  of  the 
Catholics  when  the  time  should  come  for  him  to  overthrow 
the  Republic.  As  a  consequence,  and  because  of  the  fear 
that,  in  the  event  of  a  new  presidential  election,  socialism 
would  again  embroil  the  country,  the  Catholics  stood,  in  the 
main,  for  some  revision  of  the  Constitution  which  would 
leave  the  power  in  his  hands.  It  is  true  that  Louis  Veuillot 
and  the  Univers  at  first  inclined  towards  the  legitimist 
cause,  in  the  hope  that  the  time  had  come  for  a  new  restora¬ 
tion  ; 2  but  on  being  assured  by  one  Romieu,  a  familiar  of 
the  President,  that  the  Prince  favored  the  repeal  of  the 
Falloux  Law  and  the  destruction  of  the  last  vestiges  of  the 
monopoly  held  by  the  University,  the  editor  of  the  Univers 
decided  to  support  him  in  achieving  his  ambition.3  Ac¬ 
cordingly,  that  paper  declared  that  Louis  Napoleon  was, 
“  by  force  of  circumstances  ",  the  man  who  seemed  the 
“  most  capable  of  presiding  over  the  reconstruction  of  the 
country  ",  that  he  was  the  chosen  head,  “  the  generalissimo 
of  the  great  army  of  order  ",  and  that  without  him  this 
army  would  soon  break  up  into  factions.'4  Montalembert, 
likewise  seeing  in  Louis  Napoleon  the  sole  means  of  safety, 
favored  the  revision  of  the  Constitution,  although  he  did 
not  take  part  in  the  debate  on  that  question  in  the  Assembly.5 
Lacking,  however,  the  three-fourth  majority  vote  required 
by  the  Constitution,  the  project  for  revision  was  defeated. 

1  Thirria,  op.  cit.,  vol.  ii,  p.  489. 

2  Lecanuet,  Montalembert,  iii,  p.  8. 

3  Veuillot,  Louis  Veuillot,  ii,  pp.  453-454. 

4  Thirria,  op.  cit.,  ii,  p.  517;  Univers  of  July  24,  1851. 

5  Lecanuet,  op.  cit.,  p.  24. 


3i8  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [318 

After  the  defeat  of  the  proposed  revision,  Louis  Napoleon 
suggested  the  abrogation  of  the  Law  of  the  31st  of  May, 
which  had  restricted  universal  suffrage.  In  September, 
1851,  he  advocated  the  dissolution  of  the  Assembly,  the 
withdrawal  of  the  Law  of  the  31st  of  May,  and  an  im¬ 
mediate  appeal  to  the  people.  His  ministers,  however  op¬ 
posed  and  resigned.  Montalembert  wrote  Napoleon  a  letter 
urging  him  to  adopt  a  more  conciliatory  tone. 

Right  or  wrong  [he  declared]  the  law  of  the  31st  of  May 
is  regarded  as  the  flag  of  the  Party  of  Order;  it  has  been 
opposed  only  by  a  few  legitimists  who  are  blind  admirers  of 
universal  suffrage,  and  by  the  unanimous  vote  of  the  revolu¬ 
tionary  party.  It  is  with  the  latter  that  you  will  henceforth 
range  yourself.  You  believe  that  the  law  of  the  31st  of  May 
has  greatly  diminished  the  number  of  electors  disposed  to 
vote  for  you.  That,  in  my  estimation,  is  an  error.  Two- 
thirds  of  those  whom  this  law  has  affected  do  not  bother  to 
vote,  and  remain  at  home.  The  other  third  will  always  vote 
for  the  “  red  ”  candidate,  and  it  is  repugnant  to  me  to  think 
that  you  would  ever  be  that.1 

Louis  Napoleon  replied  that  he  “  never  changed  ”  his  prin¬ 
ciples.2  Accordingly,  in  the  first  session  of  the  Assembly 
after  the  summer  recess,  the  4th  of  November,  the  President 
placed  before  it  a  request  for  the  repeal  of  the  law  in  ques¬ 
tion.  The  Assembly  appointed  a  committee  to  consider  the 
proposal.  The  committee,  however,  rejected  it,  and  dele¬ 
gated  Montalembert  to  conciliate  the  President  by  offering 
him  a  compromise.  But  this  Napoleon  refused  to  accept. 
“  Remember  Charles  X  ”,  cautioned  Montalembert.  “  I 
am  not  a  Bourbon,  but  a  Bonaparte  ”,  was  the  retort.  The 
Assembly  likewise  rejected  the  proposal  by  a  majority  of  3. 3 

1  Lecanuet,  op.  cit.,  iii,  p.  26. 

2  Ibid. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  28. 


319] 


THE  CATHOLICS  AND  THE  COUP  D’ETAT 


3T9 


Louis  Napoleon  had  thus  thrown  the  onus  of  the  law  of  the 
31  st  of  May  upon  the  Assembly,  and  posed  as  the  champion 
of  popular  rights.  It  was  a  clever  stroke  intended  to  win 
him  popularity. 

The  Coup  d’Etat  was  now  inevitable;  and  the  date  for  its 
execution  was  set  for  the  morning  of  the  2nd  of  December, 
1851,  the  anniversary  of  the  battle  of  Austerlitz.  Although 
expected  by  everyone,  the  details  and  the  time  of  execution 
were  imparted  to  five  confidants  only.1  Was  the  attitude  of 
the  Catholics  to  be  as  favorable  towards  this  event  as  it  had 
been  towards  the  revision  of  the  Constitution?  Louis 
Napoleon  must  have  been  as  morally  certain  of  it  as  he  was  of 
the  support  of  the  army  and  of  the  country  at  large.  On  the 
2nd  of  December  the  Assembly  was  suppressed,  and  Louis 
Napoleon,  in  a  proclamation  which  announced  the  restoration 
of  universal  suffrage,  called  for  a  plebiscite  on  the  basis  of  a 
Constitution  of  his  own  manufacture,  the  main  points  of 
which  were  emblazoned  in  placards  posted  up  all  over  Paris. 

The  attitude  of  the  vast  majority  of  the  Catholics  was 
expressed  by  Louis  Veuillot  in  the  Univers  some  days  pre¬ 
ceding  the  Coup  d’Etat.  “Those  who  believe  ”,  he  stated, 
“  that  M.  Bonaparte  can  be  replaced  by  a  legitimist  or  by  a 
quasi-legitimist  king  ....  are  endowed  with  a  confidence 
to  which  everything  gives  the  lie,  a  confidence  which  we  do 
not  possess.  After  Bonaparte  President,  there  is  no  pos¬ 
sible  mean  between  Bonaparte  Emperor  and  the  social  Re¬ 
public.”  2  In  order  to  avert  the  latter  disaster,  Catholic 
leaders  were  willing  to  permit  “  Caesarism  ”,  which  was 
merely  a  lesser  evil,  to  obtain  its  sway. 

After  the  Coup  d’Etat  this  attitude  was  even  more 
strongly  expressed. 


It  was  seventy  leagues  from  Paris  [wrote  Louis  Veuillot] 

1  Fisher,  H.  A.  L.,  Bonapartism  (Oxford,  1914),  p.  139. 

2  Univers,  November  25,  1851. 


320  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [320 

that  we  received  the  news  of  the  events  of  the  2nd  of  De¬ 
cember.  It  has  been  accepted  as  a  necessity  long  since  fore¬ 
seen.  .  .  .  There  is  no  opportunity  for  choice,  recrimination 
or  deliberation.  It  is  necessary  to  sustain  the  government, 
for  its  cause  is  that  of  social  order.  It  is  necessary  to  sustain 
the  government  now  while  the  struggle  is  on,  in  order  to  gain 
the  right  to  counsel  it  later.  Still  more  to-day  than  before 
the  2nd  of  December  we  say  to  the  men  of  order:  the  Pre¬ 
sident  of  the  Republic  is  your  general ;  do  not  separate  your¬ 
self  from  him,  do  not  desert  him.  If  you  do  not  triumph 
with  him,  you  will  be  vanquished  with  him,  and  irreparably 
vanquished.  Rally  to-day;  to-morrow  will  be  too  late  either 
for  your  safety  or  for  your  honor.1 2 

And  in  order  that  the  Catholics  might  the  more  readily  lend 
him  their  support,  Louis  Napoleon  decreed  that  the  Church 
of  St.  Genevieve  [the  Pantheon]  should  be  restored  to 
Catholic  worship." 

After  the  Coup  d'Etat  the  question  that  confronted  France 
was  the  plebiscite  which  Louis  Napoleon  had  called  for  the 
20th  of  December.  What  attitude  were  the  Catholics  to 
take  towards  this  appeal  to  the  country?  We  shall  let  the 
leaders  speak  for  themselves. 

The  twentieth  or  the  twenty-first  of  the  month  [wrote  the 
bishop  of  Chartres]  the  French  people  will  decide  whether 
Louis  Bonaparte  shall  be  for  ten  years  the  President  of  our 
country.  The  “  Yes  or  “No”  written  by  all  the  citizens  on 
their  ballots  will  decide  this  question,  the  consequences  of 
which  are  infinite.  Impelled  by  your  own  views,  and  still 
more  by  the  love  of  country,  of  which  Jesus  Christ  has  given 
us  the  example,  you  will  sign  “Yes”,  I  do  not  doubt.  Pro¬ 
vidence  gives,  us  at  this  moment  only  this  means  of  safety. 
It  is  evident  that  if  Bonaparte  were  rejected,  France  would 

1  Univers,  December  5,  1851. 

2  Ibid.,  December  8,  1851. 


321 


321]  the  catholics  and  the  coup  d’etat 

find  no  one  to  take  his  place.  The  people,  deceived  by  in¬ 
trigues  and  by  false  suggestions,  might  make  a  detestable 
choice,  which  would  plunge  our  country  into  new  and  in¬ 
comparable  misfortunes.1 

“  There  is  no  middle  course  possible  to-day  ”,  declared 
the  bishop  of  Mans,  “  between  the  power  asked  of  France 
by  Prince  Louis  Napoleon  Bonaparte  and  anarchy  pushed  to 
the  very  last  degree  of  cruelty  and  of  folly.  In  the  face  of 
this  imperious  position,  no  one,  therefore,  can  be  permitted 
to  abstain/' 2  “  The  bishop  of  Mans  understands  perfectly 

well ",  commented  the  C onstitutionnel  on  his  mandate, 
“  that  the  question  is  still  a  social  rather  than  a  political 
one."  3  A  circular  was  sent  to  the  clergy  of  the  diocese  of 
Saint-Brieuc,  which,  purporting  to  come  from  the  bishop, 
urged  them  to  abstain  from  voting  for  Louis  Napoleon. 
The  bishop  at  once  denied  its  authenticity,  and  informed  his 
clergy  that  they  would  do  well  to  read  the  letter  of  the 
bishop  of  Chartres.4 

I  find  in  the  papers  to-day  [said  the  bishop  of  Chalons]  the 
letter  of  Monseigneur  the  bishop  of  Chartres,  who  counsels 
his  clergy  to  vote  in  favor  of  our  President,  the  prince  Louis 
Napoleon.  He  has  in  that  only  expressed  the  thought  of  all 
good  men,  of  all  the  bishops.  .  .  .  From  the  outset  my  opinion 
was  known  throughout  the  diocese,  and  that  fact  has  made 
me  abstain  from  publishing  it  abroad,  and  from  saying  plainly 
what  has  been  so  well  understood,  that  from  thence  [i.  e.  the 
vote  for  Napoleon]  hangs  the  safety  of  France,  our  dear 
country.5 

1  Univers,  December  15,  1851. 

2  Ibid.,  December  17,  1851. 

3  Ibid. 

4  Ibid. 

5  Ibid.,  December  14,  20. 


3 22  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [322 

Montalembert  wrote  two  letters  to  the  Univers  in  which 
he  made  the  support  of  Louis  Napoleon  the  sole  means  of 
safety,  and  urged  the  Catholics  to  champion  this  destroyer 
of  the  Republican  Constitution. 

Observe  [he  began]  that  I  preach  neither  absolute  confidence 
nor  unlimited  devotion ;  I  give  myself  unreservedly  to  no 
one.  I  do  not  make  an  idol  out  of  armed  force  any  more 
than  I  do  out  of  the  reason  of  the  people.  I  confine  myself 
to  searching  for  the  good  within  the  domain  of  the  possible, 
and  to  choosing  amid  the  tribulations  by  means  of  which  God 
tries  us,  the  role  that  is  least  unworthy  of  the  dignity  of  the 
Christian  and  of  the  good  sense  of  the  citizen.  If  Louis 
Napoleon  were  unknown,  I  should  indeed  hesitate  to  confer 
so  much  power  and  responsibility  upon  him.  But,  without 
entering  here  into  an  appreciation  of  his  policy  during  the 
past  three  years,  I  recall  the  great  religious  achievements 
that  have  marked  his  government.  Accord  between  the  two 
powers  has  continued;  liberty  of  instruction  has  been  guaran¬ 
teed;  the  Pope  has  been  restored  by  French  arms;  the  Church 
has  been  put  in  possession  of  her  councils,  her  synods,  the 
fulness  of  her  dignity ;  and  she  has  beheld  the  number  of  her 
colleges,  of  her  convents,  of  her  works  of  salvation  and  of 
charity  gradually  increase.  I  seek  in  vain  apart  from  him  a 
system,  a  force,  that  shall  be  able  to  guarantee  us  comparable 
benefits.  I  behold  only  the  yawning  gulf  of  irresistible  soc¬ 
ialism.  My  choice  is  made.  I  am  for  authority  against  re¬ 
volt,  for  conservation  against  destruction,  for  society  against 
socilism,  for  the  possible  liberty  of  the  good  against  the  cer¬ 
tain  liberty  of  evil.  And  in  the  great  struggle  between  the 
two  forces  that  divide  the  world,  I  believe,  in  acting  thus,  to 
be  still,  to-day  as  always,  for  Catholicism  against  the  Revolu¬ 
tion.1 

I  begin  by  stating  [said  Montalembert  in  his  second  letter] 
that  the  deed  of  the  2nd  of  December  has  routed  all  the  re- 


1  Univers,  December  10,  1851. 


323 


323]  THE  CATHOLICS  AND  THE  COUP  D’ETAT 

volutionaries,  all  the  socialists,  all  the  bandits  of  France  and 
of  Europe.  That  is,  in  my  opinion,  a  more  than  sufficient  reason 
why  all  honest  men  should  rejoice,  and  why  all  the  most  an¬ 
tagonistic  amongst  them  should  be  resigned.  ...  To  vote 
against  Louis  Napoleon  is  to  side  with  the  socialistic  revolu¬ 
tion,  the  sole  possible  heir,  at  the  present  time,  of  the  exist¬ 
ing  government.  It  is  to  invoke  the  dictatorship  of  the 
“  reds  ”  to  take  the  place  of  the  dictatorship  of  a  prince,  who, 
for  three  years,  has  rendered  incomparable  service  to  the 
cause  of  order  and  of  Catholicism. 

To  abstain  from  voting,  he  said,  was  to  deny  all  their 
antecedents,  to  fail  in  their  duty,  and  to  abdicate  the  mis¬ 
sion  of  honest  men  when  that  mission  was  most  need¬ 
ful  and  most  capable  of  doing  good.  Moreover  the  instinct 
of  the  masses  was  for  Louis  Napoleon.  Lie  would  be,  in 
1852  as  in  1848,  the  elect  of  the  nation. 

That  being  so  [declared  Montalembert]  I  aver  that  there  is 
nothing  more  imprudent,  I  will  say  nothing  more  insane,  in  a 
country  like  ours,  than  for  religious  men  and  the  friends  of 
order  to  place  themselves  athwart  or  aside  from  the  popular 
will,  when  that  will  contains  nothing  contrary  to  the  law  of 
God  or  to  the  fundamental  constitution  of  society. 

For  those  who  were  'Catholics  before  all  else,  who  had 
always  professed  that  religion  and  society  could  accom¬ 
modate  themselves  to  all  forms  of  government  which  reason 
and  the  Catholic  faith  did  not  preclude,  he  could  find  no 
motive  or  excuse  that  would  justify  their  “  voluntary  anni¬ 
hilation.” 

There  remains  therefore  [said  Montalembert]  the  third 
course:  the  affirmative  vote.  But  to  vote  for  Louis  Napoleon 
does  not  entail  approval  of  all  he  has  done ;  it  is  to  choose  be¬ 
tween  him  and  the  total  ruin  of  France.  That  does  not  imply 
that  his  government  is  the  kind  that  we  prefer  above  all  others: 


J24  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [324 

it  simply  means  that  we  prefer  a  prince  who  has  given  proof 
of  his  resolution  and  ability  to  those  who  have  shown  up 
their  character  by  murder  and  pillage.  We  shall  not  thus 
confuse  the  'Catholic  cause  with  that  of  a  party  or  of  a  family; 
but  we  shall  arm  the  temporal  power,  the  only  possible  power 
to-day,  with  the  force  necessary  to  subdue  the  army  of  crime, 
to  defend  our  churches,  our  hearths,  our  wives,  against  those 
whose  lust  respects  nothing.  .  .  } 

These  letters  of  Montalembert  met  with  instant  approval, 
the  most  noteworthy  of  which  was  that  of  Abbe  Gerbet, 
vicar-general  of  Amiens,  who  was  himself  in  sympathy 
wiith  the  Social- Catholic  Movement. 

I  have  just  read  with  a  great  satisfaction  the  wise  and  patri¬ 
otic  counsels  that  are  contained  in  your  letter  to  the  Univers 
[he  wrote].2  At  such  a  critical  moment  this  letter,  which 
cannot  fail  to  make  a  profound  impression  on  the  Catholics 
who  have  been  accustomed  for  a  long  time  to  see  you  march 
at  their  head,  is  a  new  and  signal  service  which  you  have  just 
rendered  religion  and  society.  I  needs  must  congratulate 
you  for  it,  and  congratulate  myself  for  being  entirely  in  ac¬ 
cord  with  you  in  the  manner  of  appreciating  the  present  situa¬ 
tion,  and  of  understanding  the  duties  which  it  imposes.  .  .  . 
the  defeat  of  socialism  is  a  conspicuous  service  rendered  to 
the  whole  of  Catholicism.  The  Coups  d’Etat  of  God  .  .  .  . 
hide  themselves  beneath  the  Coups  d’Etat  of  men. 

Cardinal  Ronald,  Archbishop  of  Lyons,  likewise  heartily 
approved  the  attitude  of  the  Univers  and  of  Montalembert. 
On  the  19th  of  December  he  wrote  to  Louis  Veuillot: 

Amid  the  difficult  circumstances  in  which  we  are  situated, 
Monsieur,  you  have  understood  your  duty  and  you  have  done 
it.  You  have,  from  the  first  moment,  followed  the  line  that 

1  Univers,  December  14,  1851. 

2  Ibid.,  December  18,  1851.  The  letter  is  addressed  to  Montalembert. 


325]  THE  CATHOLICS  AND  THE  COUP  D’ETAT  325 

religion ,  sane  politics  and  good  sense  indicate.  Moreover 
your  first  words  after  the  event  [i.  e.  the  Coup  d’Etat]  have 
been  received  with  a  marked  satisfaction.  They  have  en¬ 
couraged  some,  they  have  shown  others  the  only  direction  to 
take.  ...  I  hope  ....  that  the  great  majority  of  electors 
will  vote  well,  and  that  they  will  not  desire  to  surrender 
France  to  the  most  hideous  barbarism,  because  it  is  the  pro¬ 
duct  of  impiety.  Our  country  districts,  which  are  very  peace¬ 
able,  will  not  vote  for  anarchy.  They  have  learned  with  joy 
the  news  of  the  events  of  Paris.1 

Yes,  Monsieur  [wrote  the  bishop  of  Poitiers  to  the  editor 
of  the  Univers]  you  are  right:  we  are  between  the  sword 
and  the  knife;  it  is  the  inevitable  dilemma  of  the  moment. 
But  the  sword  only  makes  the  wicked  tremble  while  the 
knife  is  sharpened  against  all  good  men.  When  God  places 
honest  men  in  face  of  such  an  alternative  the  matter  of  con¬ 
science  becomes  much  more  easy  for  them  to  resolve.  .  .  . 
My  clergy  know  that  I  regard  every  negative  vote  as  a  pre¬ 
mium  given  directly  to  the  party  that  wishes  to  burn  the 
churches  and  to  assassinate  the  priests.2 

“  Heaven  ”,  said  Pius  IX  of  the  Coup  d’Etat,  “  has  just 
paid  the  debt  of  the  Church  towards  France.”  3 

The  plebiscite  which  ended  on  the  21st  of  December,  by 
a  vote  of  7,145,393  against  592, 506, 4  supported  the  Coup 
d’Etat  and  prolonged  Louis  Napoleon’s  term  of  office  for 
ten  years.  In  order  to  associate  the  Catholics  with  his 
triumph  he  issued  a  request  to  all  the  bishops  to  celebrate 
it  by  a  Te  Deum  in  every  Cathedral  Church.5  At  the  recep¬ 
tion  of  the  Corps  diplomatique  and  of  the  clergy  of  Paris, 
the  Archbishop  expressed  the  congratulations  and  the  alleg- 

1  Veuillot,  Louis  Veuillot,  ii,  pp.  472-473. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  474. 

3  Univers,  January  7,  1852. 

4  These  figures  are  from,  Seignobos,  op.  cit.,  p.  215. 

5  Univers,  January  1,  1852. 


326  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [326 

iance  of  his  clergy.  “We  shall  pray  God  fervently”,  he 
affirmed,  “  for  the  success  of  the  high  mission  that  has 
been  confided  to  you,  for  the  peace  and  prosperity  of  the 
Republic,  for  the  harmony  and  concord  of  all  citizens.” 
Louis  Napoleon  in  turn  thanked  the  Archbishop  for  his  de¬ 
sire  “  to  put  under  divine  protection”  the  acts  which  were 
inspired  by  the  sentiment  which  these  words  had  suggested: 
‘  Let  itihe  good  be  reassured  and  the  wicked  tremble.’  ”  1 
The  senior  member  of  the  Clergy  of  Paris,  the  venerable 
cure  of  St.  Nicolas,  on  congratulating  the  President  said : 
“  I  am  happy,  Mon  signor,  to  say  to  you  with  the  prophet : 
‘  The  work  of  the  Lord  shall  prevail  in  spite  of  all 
things.’  ”  2  “  A  double  duty  is  imposed  on  us  ”,  said  the 

bishop  of  Quimper  when  the  result  of  the  plebiscite  had 
been  ascertained:  “  To  thank  God  for  the  return  of  peace; 
to  request,  for  the  man  into  whose  hands  France  has  just 
entrusted  her  destinies,  the  spirit  of  insight,  of  wisdom  and 
of  strength,  that  he  may  respond  to  the  marvelous  proof 
of  the  national  confidence.”  3  “  God  lias  blessed  ”,  said 

the  bishop  of  Olger,”  the  prince  who  has  saved  Rome  and 
the  great  nation  which  has  cooperated  with  such  a  religious 
enthusiasm,  to  the  reestablishment  of  the  Vicar  of  Jesus 
Christ  in  his  temporal  power.”  4 

Not  only,  however,  did  many  of  the  leaders  in  the  Church 
heartily  support  the  Coup  d'Etat,  but  some  even  went  so  far 
as  to  reject  representative  government. 

The  ballot  of  the  20th  of  December  is  now  known,  and  its 
meaning  is  no  more  doubtful  than  the  result  [declared  Louis 
Veuillot].  As  on  the  10th  of  December,  1848,  the  people  con- 

1  Univers,  January  2,  3,  1852. 

2  Ibid. 

’January  1,  1832;  Univers,  January  9,  1852. 

4  Univers,  January  15. 


327  ] 


THE  CATHOLICS  AND  THE  COUP  D’ETAT 


327 


suited  declare  that  they  wish  to  be  governed.  That  is  the 
cry  that  goes  forth  from  the  bowels  of  the  nation.  ...  In 
the  two  great  acclamations  of  December,  1848,  and  December, 
1851,  we  perceive,  as  it  were,  a  resume  of  our  entire  history. 
France  is  anarchical  only  by  occasion,  by  error,  by  subterfuge. 
It  is  a  country  of  authority  and  of  unity.  It  is  strong,  proud 
and  free  only  under  a  chief  in  whom  it  feels  itself  live,  and 
who  personifies  it  in  the  midst  of  the  affairs  and  of  the  inter¬ 
ests  of  the  world.  Its  good  sense  informs  it  that  several 
hands  are  not  necessary  to  hold  the  sword,  nor  several 
heads  to  bear  its  doctrine.  All  that  divides  it  against  itself 
is  hateful  to  it,  repugnant  to  its  nature,  contrary  to  its  mis¬ 
sion.  It  will  reject  Parliamentarism  as  it  has  rejected  Pro¬ 
testantism,  or  perish  in  struggling  to  vomit  it  forth.1’ 


The  climax  of  this  reactionary  doctrine  was  reached  by 
the  Abbe  Jules  Morel  in  an  article  entitled  Du  Libre  Examen 
which  he  contributed  to  the  Universe  “  Why  is  it”,  he 
asked,  “  that  deliberating  assemblies,  which  make  and  exalt 
other  nations,  destroy  ours  in  so  short  a  time?  ”  And  he 
answered:  because  France  is  a  “  country  of  free  thought.” 
Frenchmen  push  their  ideas  to  the  extreme,  and  make  of 
an  Assembly  “  a  school  of  anarchy,  an  arena  of  gladiators 
and  a  tower  of  Babel.”  The  parliamentary  form  of  govern¬ 
ment  was  therefore  unsuited  to  the  genius  of  the  French. 

But  not  all  accepted  the  Coup  d’Etat  with  the  enthusiasm 
of  the  Univers  and  of  Montalembert  and  their  following. 
The  Ami  de  la  Religion  endeavored  to  be  neutral,  and  ac¬ 
cepted  the  political  event  with  little  comment.  “  In  civil 
discord  ”,  it  declared,  “  the  Church  is  neither  amongst  the 
conquerors  nor  the  conquered :  it  prays  for  all,  it  intercedes 
for  peace  and,  at  need,  as  the  illustrious  Archbishop  of 
Paris,  it  throws  itself  between  the  combatants  and  spills 

1  Univers,  December  26,  27,  1851. 

2  February  8,  1852. 


I 


328  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [328 

even  its  last  drop  of  blood  in  order  to  allay  fratricidal 
strife."  1  A  like  attitude  was  adopted  by  the  C orrespond- 
ant.  Religion  ought  not  to  compromise  itself  in  the 
“  troubles  of  politics  ”.  “  On  the  contrary,  the  more  re¬ 

ligion  shall  remain  distinct  from  the  vicissitudes  of  affairs, 
the  more  it  will  be  not  only  respected,  but  influential. ” 
“  Ah,  that  at  last  in  the  universal  tribulation  the  Catholics 
should  not  have  to  reproach  themselves  with  having  opened 
the  way  for  a  more  intimate  union  of  its  forces  with  those 
of  the  state.”  2  Some  of  the  bishops  likewise  cautioned 
reserve.  Dupanloup,  then  bishop  of  Orleans,  advised  Mon- 
talembert,  who  had  consulted  him,  not  to  approve  the 
Coup  d’Etat  “  with  eclat  ”.3  He  desired  to  remove  himself 
far  from  all  political  strife  and  give  himself  solely  to  the 
“  work  of  God  ”.  When,  after  the  plebiscite  of  the  20th 
of  December,  the  President  issued  a  request  to  the  bishops 
for  their  prayers  on  his  behalf,  Dupanloup  simply  transmitted 
this  to  his  clergy  as  an  official  communication  without  com¬ 
ment  or  instruction.4  The  bishop'  of  Gap  advised  his 
clergy  that  their  mission  was  one  “  of  prayer,  of  concilia¬ 
tion  and  of  peace."  “  Men  of  God  ”  they  were  not  to 
mingle  in  the  “  tumults  of  the  public  square.”  They  were 
to  remember  that  “  the  priest  was  a  man  of  no  party  ”, 
“  that  he  owed  his  ministry  to  men  of  every  opinion,  that 
the  first  obligation  that  was  imposed  on  him  in  those  dif¬ 
ficult  times  was  to  conduct  himself  with  that  wisdom  and 
moderation  truly  pastoral  which  ....  would  gain  for  him 
the  respect  and  the  confidence  of  all.”  5 


1  Ami  de  la  religion,  January  3,  1852. 

2  Correspondant ,  March  25,  1852. 

3  Lagrange,  Dupanloup,  ii,  p.  207. 

4  Ibid. 

6  Ami  de  la  religion,  December  27,  1851. 


29] 


THE  CATHOLICS  AND  THE  COUP  D’ETAT 


329 


Nor  did  the  Social  Catholic  Party  approve  the  Coup 
d'Etat.  Amand  de  Melun,  arrested  and  imprisoned  with 
other  members  of  the  legislature  on  the  morning  of  the 
Coup  d'Etat ,  retired  to  private  life.1  Arnaud  [de  l’Ariiege] 
went  into  exile  with  other  republicans  because  of  his  opin¬ 
ions.2  Ozanam,  because  of  ill-health,  had  already  ceased 
to  participate  in  public  affairs.  The  Abbe  Laeordaire  saw 
in  the  overthrow  of  the  Constitution  “  a  great  public  cal¬ 
amity.”  3 4  The  Abbe  Maret  “  submitted  without  approving  ” 
the  Coup  d’Etat*  He  went  into  retirement  until  after  the 
plebiscite,  and  then  gave  himself  up  to  his  philosophical 
studies. 

The  situation  of  the  Catholics  who  could  not  support 
Louis  Napoleon  was  a  difficult  one.  They  feared  to  voice 
their  disapproval,  knowing  well  that  a  hostile  government 
could  greatly  hamper  the  work  of  the  Church.  They  there¬ 
fore  maintained  a  discreet  silence,  refraining  from  participa¬ 
tion  in  politics,  or  accepting  the  new  regime  as  a  fait 
accompli. 

Nevertheless,  because  of  the  enthusiastic  support  of  those 
who  approved  the  government,  and  the  silent  submission 
of  those  who  were  hostile,  the  Church  appeared  as  a  bul¬ 
wark  of  the  new  order.  “  Almost  all  ”,  said  Eugene 
Veuillot  of  the  bishops,  “  ratified  in  practice  this  dictum  of 
Monseigneur  Menjand,  bishop  of  Nancy :  ‘  The  President 
has  departed  from  legality  in  order  to  enter  into  the 
right.’  ”  5  We  may  therefore  accept  the  testimony  of  de 
Melun : 


1  Memoir  es,  ii,  p.  104. 

2  Bazin,  op.  cit.,  i,  p.  390. 

3  Foisset,  Vie  de  Laeordaire,  ii,  p.  230. 

4  Bazin,  op.  cit.,  p.  287. 

5  Op.  cit.,  ii,  p.  475. 


330  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [330 

The  vast  majority  of  the  episcopate,  deceived  by  the  promises 
of  the  Empire,  as  M.  de  Montalembert  had  been,  won  over  by 
the  counsels  of  the  Univers  and  by  the  very  legitimate  desire 
to  obtain  the  support  and  the  assistance  of  the  government, 
gave  to  the  new  order  of  things  a  very  prompt  adhesion. 
The  clergy  in  fact  had  been  alarmed  by  the  menaces  and  by 
the  doctrines  of  those  whom  they  called  the  “  reds  ”,  and 
against  which  the  dictatorship  of  Napoleon  would  assure  an 
energetic  repression.1 

Moreover  the  attitude  of  the  President  towards  liberty  of 
instruction  and  the  temporal  power  of  the  Pope  led  them 
to  believe  that  his  rule  would  best  safeguard  the  interests 
of  the  Church.  The  Church  was  thus  made  one  of  the 
instruments  that  enabled  Louis  Napoleon  to  found  the 
Second  Empire. 

1  Memoires,  ii,  p.  104;  cf.  Mourret,  op.  cit.,  p.  385;  Louis  Napoleon 
was  “  the  great  man  who  had  restored  Pius  IX  to  his  see/’ 


CONCLUSION 


Various  factors  had  tended  to  rally  the  Catholics  to  the 
support  of  Louis  Napoleon  and  of  the  Empire.  The  doc¬ 
trines  of  socialism  had  created  widespread  alarm.  Social¬ 
istic  propaganda  and  agitation  combined  with  an  unwieldy 
constitution  had  brought  the  Republic  into  disrepute.  On 
the  other  hand  Louis  Napoleon  had  assiduously  courted  the 
favor  of  the  Catholics.  He  had  lost  no  opportunity  of  in¬ 
sinuating  that  his  rule  would  be  beneficial  to  the  best  in¬ 
terests  of  the  Church.  The  Roman  Expedition,  in  spite 
of  his  letter  to  Edgar  Ney,  had  resulted  in  an  increase  of 
popularity  for  him.  His  attitude  towards  liberty  of  in¬ 
struction,  notwithstanding  the  hostility  which  the  Falloux 
Law  had  aroused  amongst  the  ultra-Catholics,  had  gained 
him  adherents.  Moreover,  during  the  first  years  of  the 
Empire,  conciliatory  measures  were  enacted  which  were 
calculated  to  strengthen  this  Catholic  support.  They  were 
offered  a  greater  control  of  education  than  the  Falloux 
Law  had  assured  them ; 1  their  budget  of  worship  was  in¬ 
creased;  the  multiplication  of  religious  orders  was  encour¬ 
aged;  and  the  affairs  of  the  Church  in  general  were  pros¬ 
pered.2 

But  the  enthusiasm  with  which  the  most  influential  part, 
if  not  the  majority,  of  the  Catholics  had  hailed  the  Coup 
d'Etat  and  the  proclamation  of  the  Empire  exceeded  the 
bounds  of  all  propriety.  Led  by  Louis  Veuillot  and  the 
Univers,  they  applauded  the  suppression  of  liberty,  rejected 

1  Weill,  G.,  Histoire  de  I’enscignemcnt  secondaire ,  p.  129. 

2  Lavisse,  Histoire  de  France  Contemporaine,  vol.  vi,  p.  391. 

33i]  331 


332  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [332 

parliamentary  government,1  declared  Catholicism  inconsis¬ 
tent  with  the  Revolution  and  its  principles,  and  exalted  the 
Empire  as  the  highest  expression  of  Roman  civilization." 

Some,  however,  did  not  share  this  attitude  of  the  Univers 
and  of  its  following  towards  the  Empire,  and  it  soon 
aroused  a  reaction  towards  liberalism  on  the  part  of  others. 
Lacordaire  was,  and  remained,  hostile  towards  the  Empire. 

.tin  . ,  i.  •—  «n«4fn>  •  „  .....  ■— — • 

He  did  not  believe  that  despotism  had  ever  saved  anything.3 
After  the  Coup  d’Etat ,  Dupanloup,  bishop  of  Orleans 
adopted  an  attitude  of  reserve  towards  the  new  power.  The 
day  after  the  proclamation  of  the  Empire,  the  3rd  of  De¬ 
cember,  1852,  he  issued  a  mandate  entitled  La  Liberte  de 
I'Lglise,  by  which  he  sought  to  prevent  his  clergy  from 
acclaiming  “  Caesarism  ”.  He  reminded  them  that  Napo¬ 
leon  I  had  begun  by  desiring  to  exalt  the  Church  and  had 
ended  by  persecuting  it.4  He  did  not  wish  to  foment  op¬ 
position  to  the  Empire,  but  he  sought  to  encourage  the 
Catholics  “  to  flatter  no  party,  to  abuse  no  misfortune.” 
Montalembert  applauded  this  stand,  and  wrote  Dupanloup 
that,  in  his  estimation,  it  placed  him  “  at  the  head  of  the 
French  episcopate.”  Indeed  the  repressive  measures  of  the 
Empire  and  the  intransigence  of  Louis  Veuillot  had  aroused 
the  disgust  of  the  former  leader  of  the  P arti-C atholique , 
and  in  September,  1852,  he  expressed  his  views  in  a  brochure 
entitled,  Les  Interets  Catholiques  an  XIXe  Siecle.  It  was 
a  plea  for  liberty;  not  liberty  without  restrictions,  but  liberty 
regulated,  liberty  kept  within  bounds.  In  the  existing  state 
of  Europe  he  declared  that  representative  government  was 
“the  only  possible  form  of  political  liberty”.5  The  repre- 

1  Lecanuet,  Montalembert ,  iii,  p.  89. 

2  Foisset,  Lacordaire ,  ii,  p.  254. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  262. 

4  Lagrange,  Dupanloup,  ii,  p.  21 1. 

5  Lecanuet,  op.  cit.,  iii,  pp.  69  et  seq. 


CONCLUSION 


333 


•333] 

sentative  regime,  he  believed,  was  also  more  advantageous 
for  the  Church.  Nothing  could  be  more  disastrous  for  her 
than  a  despotism  that  seemed  to  be  exercised  with  the  sup¬ 
port  of  religion.  He  reminded  the  Catholics  of  the  un¬ 
popularity  which  they  had  brought  on  themselves  in  1830 
by  their  alliance  with  the  old  monarchy,  the  popularity  which 
their  independent  attitude  toward  Louis-Philippe  and  his 
government  had  created,  and  he  protested  against  “  the  sacri¬ 
fice  of  liberty  to  force  under  the  plea  of  religion  ”.1  “  The 

cause  of  despotism  is  a  lost  cause”,  he  declared.  “  Woe 
betide  those  who  wish  to  chain  the  immortal  interests  of  re¬ 
ligion  to  this  broken  idol.”  2  Between  the  two  extremes, 
a  systematic  opposition  and  an  undignified  submission,  he 
urged  the  Catholics  to  maintain  a  position  of  reserve  and 
independence. 

The  excess  of  the  Univers  and  of  the  ultra-Catholic  party 
which  it  represented  aroused  alarm  amongst  those  who  per¬ 
ceived  the  contempt  that  it  was  bringing  upon  the  Church. 
Monseigneur  Guibert,  bishop  of  Viviers,  publicly  advised 
his  clergy  not  to  read  the  intransigent  journal,  hie  acknow¬ 
ledged  the  talent  and  the  zeal  of  the  party  that  cooperated 
in  its  production,  but  declared  that  they  were  bringing 
trouble  upon  the  Church  which  they  sought  to  serve.  They 
manifested  a  desire  to  humiliate  their  adversaries  rather 
than  to  bring  them  to  the  way  of  truth.3  Monseigneur 
Sibour,  the  Archbishop  of  Paris,  in  congratulating  Mon- 
talembert  on  the  position  which  he  had  adopted  by  “  stig¬ 
matizing  ”  the  ultra-Catholic  party,  condemned  those  who, 
“  each  morning,  heaped  anathema  upon  liberty  ”,  “  deified 
absolutism  ”,  “  made  it  the  very  ideal  of  government  ”, 
and  “  refused  all  right  in  politics  to  the  people.”  “  The 

1  Lecanuet,  op.  cit.,  p.  73. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  74. 

3  Ibid.,  pp.  102-103. 


334  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [334 

fanaticism  of  the  Univers  ",  said  another  bishop,  “  has  done 
more  harm  to  religion  than  that  of  Voltaire  ”.1  Some  of 
the  most  eminent  Catholic  laymen  also  resented  the  attitude 
of  the  Univers.  Melun,  Corcelle,  Falloux,  Foisset,  Beugnot, 
Riancey  and  others  perceived  that  it  was  paralysing  the 
rapprochement  of  religion  and  society  that  had  been  in  pro¬ 
gress  for  nearly  half  a  century,  that  it  was  making  the 
Church  unpopular,  and  that  it  was  preparing  a  reaction.  “  I 
never  read  the  Univers",  said  M.  Lefevre-Pontalis  to  a 
friend,  “  because  I  desire  to  remain  a  Christian  “  And 
I  ",  was  the  reply,  “  read  the  Univers  every  day  because  I 
do  not  wish  to  become  a  Christian/'  2 

Amongst  the  first  to  perceive  peril  for  the  Church  in  an 
alliance  with  the  Empire  was  the  Abbe  Maret,  one  of  the 
former  editors  of  the  Ere  Nouvelle.  A  few  weeks  before 
the  proclamation  of  the  Empire,  October  25th,  1852,  he  ad¬ 
vised  the  Archbishop  of  Paris,  to  assume  an  independent  at¬ 
titude  towards  the  new  government. 

The  Empire  [lie  declared]  means  absolute  power  with  all 
its  deplorable  consequences.  If  the  clergy,  through  its  re¬ 
presentatives,  the  French  cardinals  and  the  Archbishop  of 
Paris,  concur  with  the  resurrection  and  the  foundation  of 
absolute  power,  what  will  be  the  result?  First  of  all,  the 
lie  will  plainly  be  given  to  the  maxims  of  liberty  and  of  pro¬ 
gress  professed  for  more  than  twenty  years  by  the  majority 
of  the  clergy  and  of  the  Catholics.  These  maxims  and  this 
attitude  have  contributed  not  a  little  to  the  progress  of  reli¬ 
gion  ....  and  ushered  in  an  era  of  reconciliation  of  faith 
with  science,  of  religion  with  liberty,  of  Catholicism  with  legi¬ 
timate  progress.  .  .  .  But  a  new  alliance  of  the  Church  with 
an  absolute  and  despotic  power  means  the  rupture  of  this  so 
necessary  reconciliation.  This  rupture  will  occur  amid  the 

1  Lecanuet,  op.  cit.,  p.  104. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  102. 


CONCLUSION 


335 


335] 

most  unfortunate  circumstances.  Pius  IX  has  abandoned  his 
first  policy  and  his  glorious  work  of  universal  regeneration 
by  means  of  concord  between  religion  and  liberty.  All  the 
blind  and  selfish  partizans  of  the  past  within  the  Church  have 
obtained  a  hearing  and  influence.  Beside  them  a  school  has 
been  formed  which  dogmatizes  while  they  act,  and  through 
its  papers  and  books  proclaims  every  day  the  absolute  in¬ 
compatibility  of  Catholicism  with  modern  society  as  a  whole. 
The  theocratic  system  of  the  Middle  Ages  is  for  them  the 
ideal  and  the  perfect  expression  of  Catholicism.  All  that 
which  the  people  love  and  invoke  under  the  name  of  pro¬ 
gress  of  reason,  of  philosophy,  of  the  sciences,  of  society,  in 
a  word,  all  that  which  one  calls  the  legitimate  conquests  of 
the  French  Revolution  appears  injurious  and  worthy  of  con¬ 
demnation.  They  perceive  there  only  the  agency  of  the  genius 
of  evil. 

The  unenlightened  and  undiscerning  conduct  of  a  numerous 
part  of  the  clergy,  which  tends  to  confirm  the  so-called  in¬ 
compatibility  of  the  Church  with  modern  society,  will  make 
a  multitude  of  persons,  friends  of  science  and  of  liberty,  re¬ 
nounce  forever  the  Christian  and  Catholic  faith.  A  defec¬ 
tion  such  as  the  world  perhaps  has  never  known,  a  new 
apostasy  of  nations,  is  silently  being  prepared  and  marking 
the  way  for  practical  atheism  and  for  socialistic  materialism. 
The  atheistic  socialists  know  very  well  that  there  is  an  in¬ 
compatibly  between  modern  society  and  Catholicism  such 
as  a  certain  school  present  it. 

Such  is  the  situation,  which  is  full  of  peril  for  the  Church 
and  for  society.  What  weight  will  the  vote  of  the  clergy  in 
favor  of  the  reestablishment  of  absolute  power  have  in  weigh¬ 
ing  the  destinies  of  the  world  ?  One  does  not  fear  to  say :  it 
will  be  baneful,  it  will  be  disastrous  ....  because  it  will 
prove  that  the  Catholics  have  not  been  sincere  in  their  pro¬ 
fessions  in  favor  of  liberty  ....  because  it  will  render  re¬ 
conciliation  impossible,  because  it  will  yield  the  day  to  the 
omnipresent  detractors  of  the  Church.  ...  If  the  clergy  fall 
into  the  most  clever  trap  that  has  ever  been  laid  for  them, 


336  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [336 

faith  may  be  lost  in  this  old  Europe  of  ours.  Great  evil  has 
already  been  done.  It  will  then  be  consummated.1 

For  some  years  after  the  establishment  of  the  Empire  the 
Abbe  Maret  watched  the  conduct  of  the  ultra-Catholic  party 
in  silence; 2  but  on  the  4th  of  December,  1857,  he  addressed 
to  the  Minister  of  Worship  a  memorial  on  the  state  of  religion 
in  France.3  Its  purpose  was  to  point  out  “  the  moral,  social 
and  political  dangers  ”’  into  which  the  ultra-Catholic  party 
were  leading  France  and  the  Church.  He  denounced  them 
as  seeking  to  inaugurate  a  theocracy  such  as  had  “  never 
been  completely  realized  even  in  the  Middle  Ages  ”,  which 
was  their  “  ideal  politic  ”.  Regarding  this  “  theocracy  ” 
or  a  “  state  religion  ”  as  the  ideal  condition  of  the  relation 
of  the  Church  with  society,  they  rejected  the  gains  of  the 
French  Revolution  “  as  a  sort  of  apostasy  of  nations  ”. 
Even  the  history  of  the  Restoration  had  not  been  a  “  salu¬ 
tary  admonition  ”  to  them.  Consequently  the  efforts  of 
the  ultra-Catholic  party  were  serving  only  to  compromise 
the  cause  which  it  sought  to  sustain  and  to  injure  the  Church 
which  it  believed  it  was  serving.4 

The  ultra-Catholic  party,  it  is  true,  constituted  the 
majority  “  neither  in  the  episcopate,  nor  amongst  the  en¬ 
lightened  priests.  “  There  was  even  a  majority  against  it, 
but  this  majority  was  “  without  unity  and  organization.” 

Because  of  this  want  of  entente  and  concert  [said  the  Abbe 
Maret]  the  members  of  this  majority  are  timid  and  hesitating 
in  face  of  a  turbulent  and  audacious  minority.  They  do  not 
dare  come  forward  or  express  their  views,  and  they  are  in 
dread  of  attracting  the  hostility  of  a  party  which  they  fear. 

1  Bazin,  Vie  de  Mgr.  Maret,  ii,  pp.  392  et  seq. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  24. 

3  This  memorial  is  given  in  Bazin,  op.  cit.,  ii,  pp.  25  et  seq. 

4  Ibid.,  p.  28. 


CONCLUSION 


337] 


337 


Thus  this  party,  which  never  retreats,  has  opposed  to  it  only 
isolated  individuals.1 


But  its  strength,  he  declared,  was  at  Rome  rather  than  in 
France. 

The  effect  of  the  propaganda  of  the  ultra-Catholics  was 
as  deplorable  as  the  most  clear-sighted  of  their  opponents 
within  the  Church  prophesied.  Those  who  were  inclined 
to  be  hostile  to  the  Church  fitted  all  Catholics  indiscrimi¬ 
nately  into  the  ultra-Catholic  mould.  To  the  radicals  the 
Roman  Catholic  Church  appeared  the  great  enemy  of 
liberty.2  The  alliance  between  Catholicism  and  democracy 
of  which  many  had  dreamed  in  1848  seemed  to  the  philoso¬ 
phical  republicans  of  1852  to  be  a  delusion.3  The  support 
given  by  many  of  the  clergy  to  the  Coup  d’Etat  seemed  to 
them  to  demonstrate  the  necessity  of  a  union  between  the 
throne  and  the  altar,  and  the  impossibility  of  overturning 
the  one  without  destroying  the  other.  Some  indeed,  such  as 
Arnaud  [de  TAriege] ,  clung  to  their  old  creed,  and  looked 
for  a  Catholicism  that  should  be  reformed,  liberal  and  sep¬ 
arated  from  theocracy.4  Others,  such  as.  Julies  Favre, 
adopted  a  deism  after  the  eighteenth-century  fashion. 
Some,  such  as  Jules  Simon,  did  not  directly  attack  Cath¬ 
olicism.5  Others,  such  as  Vacherot  and  Edgar  Quinet,  de¬ 
nounced  lit  as  the  ally  of  despotism.6  Already  were  heard 
mutterings  that  presaged  the  battle-cry  of  the  Third  Re¬ 
public:  “  Clericalism  !  There  is  the  enemy.”  7 

1  Bazin,  op.  cit.,  p.  29. 

2  Weill,  Le  Parti  republicain,  p.  430. 

8  Ibid. 

f 

4  Ibid.,  p.  431. 

5  Ibid.,  p.  446. 

6  Ibid.,  pp.  447,  449. 

7  Ibid.,  p.  430;  cf.  Hanotaux,  G.,  Contemporary  France  (London,  1903), 
4  vols.,  vol.  i,  p.  504. 


338  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [338 

But  if  the  support  which  Catholics  gave  Louis  Napoleon 
compromised  the  interests  of  the  Church,  the  desire  to  re¬ 
tain  that  support  created  difficulties  for  the  Emperor. 

The  attitude  of  Louis  Napoleon  towards  the  Papacy,  it 
has  been  pointed  out,  was  assumed  for  the  purpose  of  winn¬ 
ing  him  the  support  of  the  Catholics.  The  Roman  Expedi¬ 
tion  was,  in  this  respect,  a  success.  It  helped  to  rally  many 
Catholics  to  the  Empire.  Even  as  late  as  1858  Louis  Napo¬ 
leon  was  the  Saint  Louis  of  the  nineteenth  century  who  had 
restored  the  Papacy.1  But  the  outcome  of  the  Roman 
Expedition  had,  in  one  sense,  been  a  defeat  f  or  the  President 
of  the  Republic.  His  letter  to  Edgar  Ney  was  disregarded. 
It  wTas  a  humiliation  which  he  could  not  endure  in  silence, 
and  he  avenged  himself  by  dismissing  the  Barrot  ministry. 
Indeed  his  whole  Italian  policy  was  characterized  by  a 
desire  to  ride  two  horses  at  once,  to  satisfy  the  aspirations 
of  the  Italian  nationalists,  and  to  hold  the  support  of  the 
French  Catholics  by  sustaining  the  temporal  power  of  the 
Papacy.  It  was  a  policy  which  no  one,  perhaps,  could  have 
carried  to  a  successful  termination,  and  certainly  not  a 
Louis  Napoleon. 

During  the  first  few  years  of  the  Empire  Louis  Napoleon 
took  no  active  steps  to  satisfy  the  Italians,  and  the  repub¬ 
licans  reproached  him  with  not  having  fulfilled  his  oath  to¬ 
wards  Italy.  But  in  1858  an  incident  occurred  which  was 
to  stimulate  him  to  action.  On  the  14th  of  January,  1858, 
Felice  Orsini,  an  Italian  who,  in  1849,  had  been  an  agent 
of  Mazzini,  made  an  attempt  on  the  Emperor’s  life.  The 
first  effect  was  one  of  anger  at  the  Italians;  and  the  gov¬ 
ernment  demanded  that  Piedmont  curb  the  radicals  who  had 
taken  refuge  in  Turin.  But  before  his  execution,  Orsini 
obtained  permission  to  have  his  counsel,  Jules  Favre,  read 
a  letter  in  court  which  concluded  with  an  appeal  to  the  Em- 


1  Lecanuet,  op.  cit.,  iii,  p.  197. 


CONCLUSION 


339 


339] 

peror  to  render  Italy  its  freedom.1  This  incident  became 
the  starting-point  of  an  Italian  policy  which  was  in  keeping 
with  the  Emperor’s  nationalistic  ideas.  In  July,  1858,  he 
entered  into  the  pact  of  Plombieres,  by  which  he  pledged 
Cavour  his  support  in  a  war  against  Austria.  In  the  early 
part  of  1859  there  appeared  a  brochure  entitled  Napoleon 
III  et  ritalie  by  La  Gueronniere,  which  if  not  actually  dic¬ 
tated  by  Louis  Napoleon,  contained  his  ideas,  and  was  in¬ 
tended  to  prepare  public  opinion  for  action.  It  emphasized 
the  necessity  of  giving  satisfaction  to  the  aspirations  of  the 
Italian  nationalists  as  over  against  the  treaties  of  1815,  and 
declared :  “  The  confederation  of  the  Italian  states  signifies 
a  pacified  Italy,  a  Papacy  consolidated  and  elevated  to  the 
height  of  its  mission,  and  a  Europe  freed  from  a  real  peril 
which  can  disturb  it  profoundly.”  The  general  interest 
therefore  should  lead  to  the  expulsion  of  Austria  from 
Lombardy.2  In  May,  1859,  hostilities  commenced  which 
ended  in  the  cession  of  Lombardy  to  Piedmont. 

The  Emperor’s  policy  throughout,  however,  was  a  two¬ 
fold  one.  The  solidarity  of  the  support  which  the  Cath¬ 
olics  gave  his  rule  made  him  shrink  from  alienating  them.3 
For  this  reason  he  still  clung  to  Gioberti’s  idea  of  an  Italy 
federated  under  the  presidency  of  the  Pope.'4  A  confedera¬ 
tion  of  Italian  states,  into  which  the  Pope  should  enter  as  a 
temporal  ruler,  and  over  which  he  should  preside,  was  the 
only  solution,  he  believed,  that  would  satisfy  the  demands 
both  of  the  Catholics  and  of  the  Italian  nationalists,5  The 
fear  of  losing  the  Catholic  support  to  his  rule  was  also 

1  Mourret,  L’Eglise  contemporaine,  part  i,  p.  452. 

2 Napoleon  in  et  Vltalie  (Paris,  1859),  pp.  60-61. 

3  Mourret,  op.  cit.,  p.  456. 

4  Cf.  supra,  p.  212. 

5  La  Gueronniere,  op.  cit.,  pp.  46  et  seq. 


340  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [340 

doubtless  one  of  the  reasons  that  prompted  him  to  negotiate 
the  premature  peace  of  Villa  franca  [July,  1859],  which  left 
Austria  still  in  control  of  Venice  and  so  greatly  disappointed 
Cavour.1 

But  however  much  Napoleon  might  desire  to  safeguard 
the  temporal  power,  the  struggle  against  Austria  inevitably 
kindled  a  flame  which  he  was  unable  to  keep  within  bounds. 
The  idea  of  confederation  was  no  longer  popular  in  Italy. 
The  duchies  of  Parma,  Modena  and  Tuscany  having  driven 
out  their  rulers,  refused  to  receive  them  back,  and  clamored 
for  annexation  to  Piedmont.  Romagna  almost  immediately 
broke  away  from  the  Papacy.  Umbria  and  the  Marches 
soon  followed,  likewise  joining  in  the  cry  for  union  with 
Piedmont.  By  the  end  of  i860  all  that  was  left  of  the 
States  of  the  Church  was  a  narrow  strip  of  territory  in¬ 
cluding  Rome  and  stretching  between  the  former  Tuscan 
and  Neapolitan  borders. 

The  Emperor  now  tried  to  adjust  his  policy  to  a  situation 
in  Italy  which  he  had  not  foreseen.  In  December,  1859, 
there  appeared  another  brochure  by  La  Gueronniere  en¬ 
titled  Le  Pape  et  le  Congres,  which  again  gave  expression 
to  the  Emperor’s  position.  It  affirmed  that  the  temporal 
power  of  the  Papacy  was  necessary  to  safeguard  the  in¬ 
terests  of  the  Church,2  but  maintained  that  the  extent  of  its 
territory  need  not  be  very  great.  “We  believe  that  it  is 
even  essential  that  it  be  restricted.  The  smaller  the  state, 
the  greater  will  be  the  sovereign.”  3  The  revolt  of  Rom¬ 
agna  from  the  Papacy  was  a  fait  acompliP  But  that  did 
not  mean  a  diminution  of  the  temporal  power  of  the  Pope. 
“  The  authority  of  the  head  of  the  Church  does  not  lie  in 

1  King,  Bolton,  History  of  Italian  Unity,  vol.  ii,  pp.  78  et  seq. 

2  Le  Pape  et  le  congres,  pp.  8-9. 

3  Ibid.,  pp.  10-11. 

4  Ibid.,  p.  21. 


CONCLUSION 


341 


341] 

the  extent  of  a  territory  which  he  can  preserve  only  with 
the  arms  of  a  foreign  power.  .  .  .” 1]  “  The  Pope  en¬ 

throned  at  Rome  and  presiding  at  the  Vatican  is  what  im¬ 
presses  the  world.”  2  The  city  of  Rome,  therefore,  would 
suffice.3  France,  it  is  true,  had  restored  the  Pope  in  1849; 
but  the  circumstances  that  had  made  this  action  necessary 
had  created  a  misfortune  for  the  Church.  France  could 
not  again  undertake  such  an  expedition,  which  would  be  a 
blow  at  the  moral  power  of  Catholicism.4  The  brochure, 
Le  Pape  et  le  Cong  res,  accordingly  proposed  a  congress  of 
the  powers  for  the  purpose  of  guaranteeing  the  Pope  the 
possession  of  the  city  of  Rome.5 

In  order  to  excute  the  ideas  that  had  been  thus  expressed, 
Napoleon  III,  on  the  31st  of  December,  wrote  a  letter  to 
the  Pope,  saying,  that  while  he  recognized  the  “  incontest¬ 
able  rights  ”  of  the  Holy  See  over  the  revolted  territory, 
he  thought  that  the  attitude  “  most  consistent  with  the  real 
interests  of  the  Holy  See  would  be  to  sacrifice  the  revolted 
provinces  ....  and  to  ask  the  powers  to  guarantee  him 
the  remainder.”  6  But  this  Pius  IX  refused  to  do.  On 
the  8th  of  January,  i860,  he  replied  to  the  letter  of  the 
Emperor  that  his  oath  did  not  permit  him  to  alienate  any 
portion  of  the  patrimony  of  his  predecessors.  “  The  Pope 
will  never  compromise  ”,  declared  Antonelli.7  In  1861  there 
appeared  another  brochure  by  La  Gueronniere,  La  France, 
Rome  et  Vltalie,  which  threw  the  blame  for  the  situation 
in  which  the  Papacy  was  placed  upon  the  papal  court.8 

1  Le  Pape  et  le  congres,  pp.  23-24. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  25. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  42. 

4  Ibid.,  pp.  28-29. 

5  Ibid.,  p.  42. 

6  Seignobos,  Ch.,  Le  Declin  de  I’empire  (Paris,  1921),  p.  14. 

7  Gueronniere,  La  France,  Rome  et  Vltalie  (Paris,  1861),  p.  44. 

8  Ibid.,  passim. 


342  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [342 

What  was  the  attitude  of  the  Catholics  towards  the  Em¬ 
peror's  Italian  policy?  A  few  liberals,  such  as  the  Abbe 
Maret,  appLuded,  believing  that  it  would  enable  Pius  IX 
to  throw  off  the  influence  of  the  “  retrograde  party  ”  which 
had  dominated  the  Papacy  since  1849,  and  to  return  to  his 
original  liberal  policy.  Maret. believed  that  the  Emperor’s 
policy  was  consistent  with  “  the  trend  of  the  Catholic  policy 
of  France”;  that  it  would  continue  “the  great  work  of 
reconciliation  of  the  Church  with  modern  society  ” ;  and 
that  it  would  give  satisfaction  to  “  the  needs  and  legitimate 
desires  ”  of  the  subjects  of  the  Papacy.1  But  from  the 
very  first  rumors  of  war  in  Italy  the  majority  of  Catholics, 
fearing  the  effect  that  such  a  war  would  have  on  the 
Papacy,  had  been  opposed  to  it.  Events  justified  their 
worst  fears,  and  by  voice  and  by  pen  they  attacked  the-  Em¬ 
peror’s  policy.  Monseigneur  Dupanloup,  bishop  of  Orleans, 
replied  to  the  brochures  of  La  Gueronniere,  deploring  the 
policy  of  the  government,  and  calling  upon  it  to  forbid 
Piedmont  to  touch  the  pontifical  sovereignty. “  Montalem- 
bert  wrote  a  brochure,  Pie  IX  et  la  France  en  1849  et  en 
1859,  in  which  he  championed  the  temporal  power.  And 
Monseigneur  Pie,  bishop  of  Poitiers,  published  a  mandate 
in  which  the  Emperor  was  alluded  to  as  Pilate.  “  Wash 
thy  hands,  O  Pilate!  Posterity  will  reject  thy  justification.” 
On  the  19th  of  January,  i860,  the  Pope  issued  an  ency¬ 
clical,  thanking  the  French  bishops  for  their  perseverance 
in  championing  the  rights  of  the  Holy  See,  and  urging  them 
to  arouse  the  enthusiasm  of  the  faithful  for  “  the  mainten¬ 
ance  of  the  temporal  power  and  of  the  patrimony  of  the 
Holy  See,  the  conservation  of  which  was  a  matter  of  in¬ 
terest  to  all  Catholics.”  3  The  Univers  published  this  en- 

1  Bazin,  op.  cit.,  ii,  p.  66. 

5  Lettre  a  M.  le  vicomte  de  la  Gueronniere  (Paris,  1861),  p.  29. 

3  Seignobos,  op.  cit.,  p.  15. 


CONCLUSION 


343 


343] 

cyclical;  but  it  was  an  illegal  act  of  opposition  to  the  gov¬ 
ernment,  and  Napoleon  retaliated  by  suppressing  that  paper. 
The  outcome  was  that  the  clerical  support  of  the  Empire  was 
broken,  and  the  Catholics  were  henceforth  ranged  with  the 
opposition. 

From  i860  the  problem  that  confronted  Napoleon  III  in 
his  Italian  policy  was:  How  could  he  withdraw  the  French 
forces  from  Rome,  and  at  the  same  time  safeguard  the  in¬ 
terests  of  the  Papacy  and  satisfy  the  demands  of  the  new 
Kingdom  of  Italy?  1  In  1864  he  entered  into  a  convention 
with  the  Italian  government  by  which  it  was  agreed  that  the 
French  troops  should  be  withdrawn  within  two  years,  and 
that  the  Italians  should  protect  the  existing  dominions  of 
the  Holy  See.  The  Pope  might  organize  an  army  on  con¬ 
dition  that  it  should  not  be  used  against  Italy,  and  the 
French  troops  were  to  be  withdrawn  as  this  army  was  or¬ 
ganized.  But  this  convention  pleased  neither  the  Italians, 
who  wanted  Rome  for  the  capital  of  the  new  Kingdom  of 
Italy,  nor  the  French  Catholics  who  feared  for  the  safety  of 
the  temporal  power. 

At  the  close  of  1866,  according  to  the  agreement,  the 
French  troops  had  actually  been  withdrawn  from  Rome. 
In  1867,  however,  Garibaldi  invaded  the  pontifical  territory, 
and  Napoleon  once  more  despatched  French  troops  to  oc¬ 
cupy  Rome.  Hencef  orth  the  Emperor  had  no  confidence  in 
Italy,  and  Italy  hoped  for  nothing  from  Napoleon.2'  Ac¬ 
cordingly  after  1867  Napoleon  and  his  ministers  chose  the 
easier  path  of  leaving  the  Roman  question  unsolved. 
Neither  the  French  Catholics  nor  the  Italian  nationalists 
were  pleased.  The  Emperor  had  alienated  the  sympathy  of 
Italy  as  well  as  lost  the  support  of  the  Catholics  at  home. 

1  Bourgeois  et  Clermont,  op.  cit pp.  200-217. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  217. 


344  CATHOLICISM  AND  SECOND  FRENCH  REPUBLIC  [344 

The  consequence  was  that  July,  1870,  found  him  without 
an  ally,  and  facing  a  war  with  Prussia  for  which  France 
was  ill-prepared. 

An  Italian  policy  that  was  intended  to  win  him  popu¬ 
larity  amongst  the  Catholics  at  home  and  the  support  of 
Italy  abroad,  was  thus  one  of  the  causes  of  the  downfall  of 
the  rule  of  Napoleon  III.  The  foundation  on  which  he  had 
built  his  power  proved  to  be  unsound.  Two  props  of  the 
Empire  turned  out  to  be  instruments  of  its  destruction. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


Catalogue  de  Vhistoire  de  France  ( Bibliotheque  Nationale),  (Paris, 
1855-1895).  12  vols.  A  bibliographical  tool  of  great  value. 

Documents 

Great  Britain.  Foreign  Office  Records.  Correspondence  of  Lord  Nor - 
manby  with  Lord  Palmerston.  March-December,  1848.  F.  O.  27, 
vols.  827-833;  January-December,  1849,  vols.  840-848. 

Ibid.,  Correspondence  respecting  affairs  of  Italy,  1848-1849,  F.  O.  43, 
vols.,  42,  43,  45  and  46. 

France.  Archives  Nationales.  V ersement  de  la  chambre  des  deputies, 
276,  dossier  4.  Proces  verbaux  de  comite  des  cultes. 

Ibid.,  331,  dossiers  169-170.  Proqes-verbaux  de  la  commission  d’ assist¬ 
ance  et  de  prevoyance. 


Periodicals 

LI  Ami  de  la  religion.  Edited  by  Abbe  Dupanloup  after  October  1848. 
Annales  de  la  charite.  Organe  de  la  societe  d’economie  charitable. 
Annuaire  historique. 

Le  Christ  republicain.  Journal  du  citoyen  Declergues.  Nos.  1-5  pub¬ 
lished  June  8-25,  1848;  nos.  6-7,  Jan.-Mar.,  1849. 

Le  Constitutionnel.  Orleanist. 

Le  Correspondent. 

La  Democratie  pacifique.  Fourierist. 

Le  Drapeau  du  peuple,  christianisme,  democratie,  socialisme.  Appeared 
Dec.  1848-June  1850.  Edition  Mensuelle.  Edited  by  Abbe  Chan- 
tome. 

UElection  populaire.  Edited  by  Montalembert.  5  nos.,  3-18  April,  1848. 
Litre  nouvelle.  Journal  of  Lacordaire,  Maret,  Ozanam  and  de  Coux. 
April  15,  i84&-June  1,  1849.  The  original  editors  withdrew  April  5, 
1849. 

La  France  religieuse.  Journal  du  clerge  Catholique,  redig e  sous  les 
auspices  d'une  societe  d’ecclesiastiques.  October,  1848  -  February, 

1849. 

Journal  des  debats. 

La  Liberte  religieuse.  Organe  politique  des  droits  du  clerge  et  des 
veritables  interests  du  peuple.  March  16-June  1,  1848. 

345] 


345 


346  BIBLIOGRAPHY  [346 

Le  Moniteur  catholique,  journal  et  revue  du  monde  religieuse.  January 
1,  1850-June  15,  1850. 

Le  Moniteur  religieuse,  journal  du  clerge  et  du  peuple.  7  nos. :  December 
15,  i849H-April  6,  1850. 

Le  Moniteur  universe l.  Journal  o  ff  del  de  la  republique  frangaise. 

Le  National.  Moderate  republican. 

Le  Napoleon  republicain.  6  numbers,  June  14-25,  1848. 

Le  Peuple  constituent.  Journal  of  Lamennais.  February  27 -July  11, 
1848. 

Le  Peuple.  Journal  of  Proudhon. 

La  Reforme.  Democratic  republican. 

La  Revolution  democratique  et  sociale.  Organ  of  the  Mountain. 

Revue  des  deux  monde s. 

La  Revue  nationale.  Organe  de  la  demo  era-tie  chretienne.  Edited  by 
Buchez  and  Bastide.  May  1847-July  1848. 

Revue  du  socialism  chrctien.  Aux  savants,  aux  politiques,  aux  pretres! 
Revue  du  socialism  chretien,  ou  exposition  de  la  theorie  du  christi- 
anisme  considere  dans  ses  rapports  avec  les  lois  de  Vunivers,  les 
traditions  sacrees  des  peuples  et  la  destinee  sociale  du  genre 
humaine.  Edited  by  Victor  Galland.  January-July,  1850. 

La  V oix  de  Veglise.  June  1846-May  1848. 

La  V oix  de  la  verite.  Journal  des  faits  religieuse,  politiques,  scientifiques 
et  litteraire,  1846-1851. 

Le  Vrai  catholique.  Journal  de  la  reforme  religieuse  et  sociale ;  revue 
politique  et  litteraire.  November,  1848-February,  1849. 

UUnivers.  Edited  by  Louis  Veuillot. 

Memoirs,  Correspondence,  etc. 

Azeglio,  Massimo  d’,  Correspondance  politique,  2nd  ed.  (Paris,  1867). 

Barrot,  Odilon,  Memoires  posthiwies  (Paris,  1875-1876),  4  vols. 

Bastide,  Jules,  La  republique  frangaise  et  P Italic  en  1848;  recits,  notes 
et  documents  diplomatiques  (Brussels,  1858). 

Camp,  Maxime  du,  Souvenir  de  1848  (  Paris,  1876). 

Carnot,  Hippolyte-Lazare,  Le  ministere  de  I’instruction  publique  et  des 
cultes,  dcpuis  le  24  fevrier  jusqu’au  5  juillet  1848  (Paris,  1848). 

Corcelle,  Francois  T.  de,  Souvenir  de  1848,  premiere  intervention  dans 
les  affaires  de  Rome  (Paris,  1857). 

Falloux,  Comte  Alfred  de,  Memoires  d’un  roya-liste  (Paris,  1888),  2  vols. 
English  trans.  ('London,  1888),  2  vols. 

- ,  Correspondance  du  R.  P.  Lacordaire  et  de  Madame  Swetchine 

(Paris,  1864). 

Ferrere,  Aristide,  Revelations  sur  la  propaganda  napoleonienne  faiie  en 
1848  et  1849  pour  servir  d  Vhistoire  secrete  des  elections  du  Prince 
Louis  Napoleon  Bonaparte  (Turin,  1863). 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


347 


347] 

Hiibner,  Count  von,  Une  annee  de  ma  vie ,  1848-1849  (Paris,  1891). 

Lesseps,  Ferdinand  de,  Ma  mission  d  Rome,  mai  1849.  Memoire  pre¬ 
sente  au  conseil  d'etat  (Paris,  1849). 

- ,  Recollections  of  forty  years.  Translated  by  C.  B.  Pitman  (Lon¬ 
don,  1887),  2  vols. 

Melun,  Comte  Armand  de,  Memoires  (Paris,  1891),  2  vols. 

Montalembert,  Comte  de — Texier,  Abbe,  Correspondance  de  Montalem - 
bert  et  de  l' Abbe  Texier  (Paris,  1899). 

Normanby,  Constantine  ,H.  P.,  first  Marquis  of,  A  year  of  revolution. 
From  a  journal  kept  in  Paris  in  1848  (London,  1857),  2  vols. 

Orsini,  Felice,  Memoirs  and  adventures  of  Felice  Orsini,  written  by 
himself.  English  trans.  (Edinburgh,  1857). 

Ozanam,  F.,  Lettres  de  Frederic  Ozanam,  1831-1853,  8th  ed.  (Paris, 
1912),  2  vols. 

Pasolini,  Pier  Desideris,  G.  Pasolini.  Memorie  (Imola,  1880).  Memoir 
compiled  by  his  son.  Translated  and  abridged  by  the  Dowager 
Countess  of  Dalhousie  (London,  1885). 

Persigny,  Due  de,  Memoires  du  due  de  Persigny.  Publics  avec  des 
documents  inedits,  par  M.  H.  de  Loire,  Cte.  d'Espagny,  ancien  secre¬ 
taire  intime  du  due  (Paris,  1896). 

Senior,  Nassau  William,  Correspondence  and  conversations  of  Alexis  de 
Tocqueville  with  Nassau  William  Senior,  1834-1859  (London,  1872), 
2  vols. 

- ,  Conversations  with  M.  Thiers,  M.  Guizot  and  other  distinguished 

persons  during  the  second  empire.  Ed.  by  his  daughter,  M.  C.  M. 
Simpson  (London,  1878),  2  vols. 

Seignobos  states,  although  he  does  not  give  his  authority  for  the  state¬ 
ment,  that  the  various  sections  of  this  work  were  reviewed  by  the  per¬ 
sons  with  whom  the  conversations  were  held. 

— — ,  Conversations  with  distinguished  persons  during  the  second  em¬ 
pire,  from  1860-1863.  Edited  by  his  daughter,  M.  C.  M.  Simpson 
(London,  1880),  2  vols. 

— — ,  Journals  kept  in  France  and  Italy  from  1848-1852;  with  a  sketch 
of  the  revolution  of  1848.  Edited  by  his  daughter,  M.  C.  M.  Simp¬ 
son  (London,  1871). 

Tocqueville,  Alexis  de,  Souvenirs  (Paris,  1893). 

State  Papers 

Great  Britain.  State  Papers,  vol.  lvii,  no.  1083,  Correspondence  respect¬ 
ing  the  affairs  of  Rome;  no.  1088,  Instructions  addressed  by  the 
government  of  France  to  the  French  agents  at  Vienna  and  at  Gaeta 
respecting  the  French  expedition  to  Civita-Vecchia;  no.  1097,  Cor¬ 
respondence  respecting  the  affairs  of  Italy,  part  i,  1846  and  1847; 
no.  1108,  ditto,  part  ii,  January-June  30,  1848.  Vol.  lviii,  no.  1122, 


348  BIBLIOGRAPHY  [348 

Correspondence  respecting  the  affairs  of  Italy ,  part  iii,  July  to  De¬ 
cember,  1848;  no.  1125,  ditto,  part  iv,  1849. 

Biography 

Ashley,  Hon.  Evelyn,  The  life  and  correspondence  of  Henry  John 
Temple,  viscount  Palmerston  (London,  1879),  2  vols. 

Ballerini,  P.,  Les  premieres  pages  du  pontificat  du  pape  Pie  ix  (Rome, 
1909). 

Baunard,  Monseigneur  Louis,  Histoire  du  cardinal  Pie,  eveque  de  Poi¬ 
tiers  (  Poitiers,  1886),  2  vols. 

- ,  Frederic  Ozanam,  4th  ed.  (Paris,  1914). 

— • — ,  Le  vicomte  Armand  de  Melun  d’apres  ses  memoires  et  sa  corres- 
pondance  (Paris,  1880). 

Bazin,  Abbe  G.,  Vie  de  Monseigneur  Maret,  son  temps  et  ses  oeurves 
(Paris,  1891),  3  vols.  Valuable  for  the  many  documents  which  it 
quotes  in  extenso. 

Boissonot,  Abbe  Henri,  Le  Cardinal  Meignan  (Paris,  1899). 

Boutard,  Abbe  Charles,  Lamennais,  sa  vie  et  ses  doctrines  (Paris,  1906- 
1913),  3  vols. 

Calippe,  Abbe  Charles,  Ozanam,  2nd  ed.  (Paris,  1913). 

Caiman,  A.  R.,  Ledru-Rollin  and  the  Second  French  Republic  (New 
York,  1922). 

Castella,  G.,  Buchez,  1796-1865  (Paris,  1911). 

Chauvin,  P.,  Le  pere  Gratry,  Vhomme  et  V oeuvre  (Paris,  1901). 

Cheetham,  F.  H.,  Louis  Napoleon  and  the  genesis  of  the  second  empire. 
Being  a  life  of  the  emperor  Napoleon  III  to  the  time  of  his  election 
to  the  presidency  of  the  republic  (London,  1909). 

Chevalier,  A.,  Vie  charitable  du  vicomte  de  Melun  (Paris,  1895). 

Chocarne,  P.,  Le  pere  Lacordaire,  sa  vie  intime  et  religieuse  (Paris, 
18 66),  2  vols. 

Cusack,  Mary  I.,  Life  and  times  of  Pius  IX  (London,  1878). 

Falloux, 'Comte  A.  de,  Augustin  Cochin  (Paris,  1875). 

- ,  L’ Eveque  d’ Orleans  (Paris,  1879). 

- ,  Madame  Swet chine,  sa  vie  et  ses  oeuvres  (Paris,  i860). 

Foisset,  M.,  Vie  du  R.  P.  Lacordaire,  2nd  ed.  (Paris,  1873),  2  vols. 

Follenay,  ■  Paguelle  de,  Vie  du  cardinal  Guibert  (Paris,  1896),  2  vols. 

Follioley,  Abbe  L.,  Montalembcrt  et  monseigneur  Parisis  (Paris,  1901). 

Forbes,  Archibald,  The  life  of  Napoleon  III  (London,  1898). 

Foulon,  Cardinal  J.  A.,  Histoire  de  la  vie  et  des  oeuvres  -de  monseigneur 
Darboy,  archeveque  de  Paris  (Paris,  1899). 

Guillemant,  A.,  Charles  Louis  Parisis  (Paris,  1916-1917),  3  vols. 

Halevy,  Daniel,  Le  courrier  de  M.  Thiers,  d’apres  les  documents  con¬ 
serves  au  department  des  manuscrits  de  la  bibliotheque  nationale 
(Paris,  1921). 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


349 


349] 

Hitchman,  Francis,  Pius  IX  (London,  1878). 

Jerrold,  Blanchard,  The  life  of  Napoleon  III  (London,  1874-1882),  4 
vols. 

King,  Bolton,  The  life  of  Mazzini,  Everyman’s  Library  (London,  1912). 

Lagrange,  Abbe  F.,  Vie  de  monseigneur  Dupanloup  (Paris,  1883),  3  vols. 

Lecanuet,  R.  P.,  Montalembert  d’apres  son  journal  et  sa  correspondance, 
4th  ed.  (Paris,  1912-1920). 

Legge,  A.  O.,  Pius  IX.  The  story  of  his  life  to  the  restoration  of  1850 
(London),  1875),  2  vols. 

Maguire,  J.  F.,  Pontificate  of  Pius  IX  (London,  1870). 

Mazade,  C.  de,  Monsieur  Thiers:  cinquante  annees  d’histoire  contem- 
poraine  (Paris,  1884). 

Meaux,  Vicomte  de,  Montalembert  (Paris,  1897). 

Ozanam,  C.  A.,  Vie  de  Frederic  Ozanam  (Paris,  1882). 

Ponlevoy,  P.  A.  de,  Vie  du  R.  P.  Xavier  de  Ravignm  (Paris,  i860),  2 
vols. 

Pougeois,  Abbe  A.,  Histoire  de  Pie  IX,  son  pontihcat  et  son  siecle  (Paris, 
1877-1886),  6  vols. 

Simpson,  F.  A.,  Rise  of  Napoleon  III  (London,  1907). 

Spuller,  Eugene,  Lamennais  (Paris,  1892). 

Tchernoff,  I.,  Louis  Blanc  (Paris,  1904). 

Thirria,  H.,  Napoleon  III  avant  V empire,  2nd  ed.  (Paris,  1895),  2  vols. 

Trollope,  T.  A.,  The  story  of  the  life  of  Pius  IX  (London,  1887),  2 
vols. 

Veuillot,  Eugene,  Louis  V euillot  (Paris,  1899-1914),  4  vols. 

- ,  Le  comte  de  Falloux  et  ses  memoires  (Paris,  1888). 

Villefranche,  S.  M.,  Pie  ix,  sa  vie,  son  histoire,  son  siecle  (Lyon,  1876). 

AVhitehouse,  H.  R.,  The  life  of  Lamartine,  2  vols.  (London,  1918). 

General  Histories 

Baudrillart,  A.,  Quatre  cents  ans  de  concordat  (Paris,  1905). 

Baunard,  Mgr.  L.,  Un  siecle  de  Veglise  de  France  (Paris,  1900). 

Blanc,  Louis,  Histoire  de  la  revolution  de  1848  (Paris,  1870),  2  vols. 

Bouniols,  G.,  Histoire  de  la  revolution  de  1848  (Paris,  1918). 

Bourgain,  L’Eglise  de  France  et  Vetat  au  xixe  siecle  (Paris,  1904). 

Charlety,  S.,  La  monarchie  de  juillet  (Paris,  1921).  Vol.  5  of  Lavisse, 
E.,  Histoire  de  France  contemporaine. 

Debidour,  A.,  Histoire  des  rapports  de  Veglise  et  de  Vetat  en  France  de 
1789  a  1870,  2nd  ed.  (Paris,  1911). 

Delord,  T.,  Histoire  du  seconde  empire,  1848-1869  (Paris,  1869),  4  vols. 

Desdevises  du  Dezert,  G.,  L’Eglise  et  Vetat  en  France  (Paris,  1907),  2 
vols.  (1)  Depuis  Vedit  de  Nantes  jusqu’au  concordat  (1598-1801). 
(2)  Depuis  le  concordat  jusqu’d  nos  jours  (1801-1906). 

Gorce,  P.  de  la,  Histoire  de  la  seconde  republique  frangaise,  8th  ed. 
(Paris,  1919),  2  vols. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


350 


[350 


Lamartine,  A.  de,  Histoire  de  la  revolution  de  1848  (Paris,  1849),  2  vols. 
English  translation  (London,  1849). 

Leroy-Beaulieu,  A.,  Les  catholique  s  liberaux:  Veglise  et  le  liberalism  de 
1830  a  nos  jours  (Paris,  1885). 

MacCaffrey,  J.,  History  of  the  Catholic  Church  in  the  nineteenth  cen¬ 
tury  (London,  1910),  2  vols. 

Mourret,  F.,  UEglise  contemporaine.  Premiere  partie  (1823-1878), 
(Paris,  1922).  Vol  8  of  the  Histoire  general  de  Veglise. 

- ,  Le  mouvement  catholique  en  France  de  1830  a  1850  (Paris,  1917). 

Nielsen,  F.,  The  History  of  the  Papacy  in  the  XIXth  Century  (New 
York,  1906),  2  vols. 

Ollivier,  E.,  L’ Empire  liberal,  etudes,  recits,  souvenirs  (Paris,  1895- 
1913),  17  vols. 

Pierre,  V.,  Histoire  de  la  republique  de  1848,  2nd  ed.  (Paris,  1878),  2  vols. 
Renard,  G.,  La  republique  de  1848  (Paris,  1901).  Part  of  Jaures,  His¬ 
toire  socialiste. 

Seignobos,  Ch.,  La  revolution  de  1848  —  le  second  empire,  1848-1859 
(Paris,  1921).  Vol.  6  of  Lavisse,  E.,  Histoire  de  France  contem¬ 
poraine. 

Spuller,  E.,  Histoire  parlementaire  de  la  seconde  republique  (Paris, 

1891) . 

Stern,  Daniel,  Histoire  de  la  revolution  de  1848,  2nd  ed.  (Paris,  1862), 
2  vols. 

Thureau-Dangin,  P.,  Histoire  de  la  monarchic  de  juillet  (Paris,  1884- 

1892) ,  7  vols. 

- ,  L’Eglise  et  Vetat  sous  la  monarchic  de  juillet  (Paris,  1880). 

Weill,  G.,  Histoire  du  catholicisme  liberal  en  France,  1828-1908  (Paris, 
1909) . 

■ - ,  Histoire  du  parti  republicain  en  France  de  1814  a  1870  (Paris, 

1900). 

Works  and  Pamphlets  on  Special  Topics 
Chapter  I 

Bonnetat,  Abbe  J.,  Considerations  sur  Vinamovibilite  des  desservants 
(Paris,  1848).  B.N.Ld4.5i8o.1 

Cabane,  ,H.,  Histoire  du  clcrge  de  France  pendant  la  revolution  de  1848. 

24  fevricr — 20  decembre,  1848,  2nd  ed.  (Paris,  1908). 

Cazeau,  Lettre  d’un  cure  cantonal  sur  Vinamovibilite  des  desservants 
(Strasbourg,  1850).  B.N.Ld4.5224. 

Chantome,  Abbe  P.,  Petition  adressee  au  pape,  aux  concilcs,  aux  eveques 
sur  les  reformes  a  operer  dans  Veglise  catholique  (Paris,  1849). 
B.N.Ld4.5205. 

1  The  call  numbers  are  those  of  the  Bibliotheque  Nationale. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


351] 


351 


Chartier,  L.,  Lc  clerge  aux  elections.  Un  pretre  a  ses  freres  (Chars, 
1848).  iB:N.LbS4.i6i2. 

Chabeau,  F.,  De  V intervention  du  clerge  dans  les  affaires  seculieres 
politiques.  Reflexions  adressees  d  M.  I’ Abbe  Combalot  (Paris,  1851). 
B.N.LCI4.5236. 

Combalot,  Abbe,  Lettre  adressee  d  Monseigneur  V  arch  eve  que  de  Paris 
par  I  Abbe  Combalot,  missionnaire  apostolique,  sur  V intervention  du 
clerge  dans  les  affaires  seculieres  it  politiques  (Lyon,  1S51).  B.  N. 
Ld4.5233. 

Dangers  de  l’ intervention  de  Vetat  dans  les  choses  ecclesiastiques  et 
specialement  dans  la  question  de  la  inamovibilite  (Paris,  1850). 
B.NXCL4.5228. 

Deux  articles  de  la  nouvelle  constitution  (Avignon,  1848).  B.  N.  Ld4. 

5181. 

Egalite  dcs  cultes  (Paris,  1848).  B.N.Lb54.90. 

Etang,  Abbe  M.  de  1’,  Catholicisme  et  la  republique  en  France  (Paris, 
1848).  B.N.Lb53.i027. 

- ,  Du  budget  du  culte  catholique  (Paris,  1848).  B.N.LCI4.51771. 

Falize,  Abbe,  Observations  sur  la  maniere  de  trait er  la  question  religieuse 
dans  la  future  constitution  (Soissons,  1848).  BX.Ld4.5176. 

Forichon,  Abbe,  Lettre  sur  V organisation  du  clerge  a  MM.  les  repre¬ 
sent  ants  du  comite  des  cultes  (Paris,  1849).  B.N.Ld4.52o5. 

Gilon,  FL,  Voix  d’un  catholique  en  fevrier,  1848,  ou  reforme  dans  la 
constitution  du  clerge  et  dans  la  discipline  ecclesiastique  (Paris, 
1848).  BX.Ld4.5170. 

Guerin,  L.  F.,  De  la  separation  des  deux  puissances,  consideree  comme 
consequence  necessaire  de  la  liberte  civile  des  cultes  et  surtout  de  la 
liberte  dogmatique  professce  par  Vetat  et  condamnee  par  le  Saint- 
Siege  (Paris,  1848).  BX.Ld4.5182. 

Haureau,  M.  B.,  Enseignement  universel.  La  liberte  et  Vegalite  des 
cultes  (Paris,  1848).  B.N.Ld4.5i83. 

Jesus  Christ! !  Liberte,  egalite,  fraternite  (  Paris,  1848).  B.N.LbS3.i023. 

Lescoeur,  L.,  L’Etat  et  le  budget  des  cultes  (Paris,  1848).  BX.Ld4.5174. 

Lamennais,  Opinion  du  citoyen  Lamennais  contre  le  salaire  des  cultes 
par  Vetat  (Paris,  1848).  B.N.Lb54.90. 

Liotard,  Abbe,  Opinion  sur  les  candidatures  des  pretres  (Issoudun,  1848). 
B.N.Lb54.ii52. 

Mosel,  Abbe,  Perils  de  la  doctrine  catholique  dans  un  opuscule  anon 
intitule:  L’Ltat  et  les  cultes  (Angers,  1848).  Bi.NjLd4.5T85,. 

Observations  presentees  a  Vassemblee  nationale  par  un  membre  du  club 
de  la  fraternite  de  Lyon  sur  le  bref  de  Pie  ix  de  18  mars,  1848  (Lyon, 
1848).  B.N.Ld4.5i7i. 

Pradie,  P.,  La  question  religieuse  en  1682,  1790,  1802  et  1848,  et  his- 
torique  complet  dcs  travaux  du  comite  des  cultes  de  Vassemblee 
constituante  de  1848  (Paris,  1849). 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


352 


[352 


Projet  de  constitution  ecclesiastique  presente  d  Vassemblee  nationale 
(Paris,  1848).  B.N.Ld4.5i79. 

Qui  doit  payer  les  pretresf  Reponse  d’un  club  a  la  question  (Paris, 
1848).  B.N.Lb54.88. 

Reflexions  sur  la  maniere  de  traiter  la  question  religieuse  dans  la  pro- 
chaine  constitution  (Paris,  1848).  B.N.Lb54.9i. 

Reponse  aux  ennemis  de  Vinamovibilite  des  pretres  desservants  (Lyon, 
1850) .  B.N.Ld4.5225. 

La  republique  et  la  religion  (Paris,  1848).  B.N.Lb54.26o. 

Wilhelm,  La  nation  et  le  clerge  (Paris,  1848).  B.N.LbS4.367. 


Chapters  II  and  III 

Arnaud,  F.  (de  1’Ariege),  Cercle  de  la  democratie  catholique  (Paris, 
1848).  B.N.Lb53.i372. 

Blanc,  Louis,  Organization  du  travail,  5th  ed.  (Paris,  1848). 

'Cabet,  E.,  Propagande  communiste  (Paris,  1842).  B.N  jLbSJ  .3608. 

- ,  Le  vrai  christ ainisme  suivant  Jesus  Christ,  2nd  ed.  (Paris,  1847). 

Calippe,  Abbe  Ch.,  L’ Attitude  so  dale  des  catholiques  frangais  au  xixe 
siecle  (Paris,  1911-1912),  3  vols. 

Cheve,  C.  F.,  Catechisme  socialiste  (Paris,  1850).  B.N.Lb55.i565. 

- ,  Le  dernier  mot  du  socialisms  par  un  catholique  (Paris,  1848). 

B.N.Lb54.2i46. 

Chouteau,  O.,  Programme  de  socialisme  catholique  (Dole,  1849).  B.N. 
Lb5  5.944. 

Considerant,  V.,  Le  socialisme,  Pest  le  vrai  christ  ainisme.  Paiens  con- 
vertissez-vous  (Paris,  1849).  B.N.Lb55.890. 

Deschanel,  E.,  Catholicisme  et  socialisme  (Paris,  1850).  B.N.LbS5*7°3* 

Dreyfus,  F.,  L’ Assistance  sous  la  seconde  republique,  1848-1851  (Paris, 
1907). 

Ferraz,  M.,  Le  socialisme,  le  naturalisme  et  le  positivisms  (Paris,  1877). 

Fesch,  P.,  Lacordaire  journaliste,  1830-1848  (Paris,  1897). 

Fourniere,  E.,  Les  theories  socialistes  au  xixe  siecle,  de  Baboeuf  d 
Proudhon  (Paris,  1904). 

Gratry,  Catechisme  social,  ou  demandcs  et  reponses  sur  les  devoirs 
sociaux  (Paris,  1848).  B.N.Lb54.2i84. 

Hibley,  C.,  Le  socialisme  et  le  revolution  frangaise  (Paris,  1848).  B.N. 
Lb54.i446. 

Joly,  Henri,  Le  socialisme  chretien  (Paris,  1892). 

Leroux,  Pierre,  Du  christianisme  et  de  ses  origines  democratiques 
(Paris,  1848). 

Melun,  A.  de,  De  V intervention  de  la  societe  pour  prevenir  et  soulager 
la  mis  ere  (Paris,  1849).  B.N.Lb55.i4i. 

Michel,  Henry,  L’Idee  de  Vetat.  Essai  critique  sur  I’histoire  des  theories 
sociales  et  politiques  en  France  depuis  la  revolution  (Paris,  1896). 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


353] 


353 


Montalembert,  Ch.  de,  Quelques  conseils  aux  catholiques  sur  la  direction 
d  donner  a  la  polemique  actuelle,  et  sur  quelques  dangers  a  eviter 
(Paris,  1848).  B.N,Lb54.i390. 

Moon,  P.  T.,  The  labor  problem  and  the  social  Catholic  movement  in 
France  (New  York,  1921). 

Ozanam,  A.  F.,  Les  origines  du  socialisme  (Paris,  1848).  B.N.Lb54.i45i. 

- - ,  Melanges  (Paris,  1855),  2  vols. 

Proletaire  catholique  republican  au  peuple  souffrant  de  Paris ,  Un  (Paris, 
1848).  B.N.Lb53,i372. 

Quentin-Bauchart,  P.,  La  crise  sociale  de  1848.  Les  origines  et  la  revo¬ 
lution  de  fevrier  (Paris,  1920). 

Chapters  IV-VI  and  VIII 

About,  E.,  La  question  romaine  (Bruxelles,  1859). 

Arthur,  W.,  Italy  in  transition  (London,  i860). 

Balleydier,  A.,  Histoire  de  la  revolution  de  Rome.  Tableau  religieux 
politique  et  militaire  des  annees  1846,  184/,  1848,  1849  et  1850  en 
Italie  (Paris,  1851),  2  vols. 

Bittard  des  Portes,  L’Lxpedition  frangaise  de  Rome,  1849,  2nd  ed. 
(Paris,  1905). 

Bianchi,  N.,  Storia  documentata  della  diplomazia  Europea  in  Italia, 
1814-1861  (Torino,  1865),  8  vols. 

IBonnetat,  Abbe  J.,  Caractere  et  prevarication  de  la  souverainete,  tempo - 
relle,  son  insubhsance  pour  le  maintien  et  le  salut  de  Vordre  social 
(Paris,  1851).  B.N.Ld4.5250. 

Bourgeois,  E.  et  Clermont  E.,  Rome  et  Napoleon  III,  1849-1870.  Etude 
sur  les  origines  et  la  chute  du  second  empire  (Paris,  1907). 

Bremand  et  Cousin,  Manifesto  des  redacteurs  du  recueil  biographique  du 
clerge  sous  la  republique;  au  clerge  et  a  leurs  abonnes  (Paris,  1848). 
B.N.Lb54.i678. 

Cochrane,  A.  B.,  Young  Italy  (London,  1850). 

Dupanloup,  F.,  De  la  souverainete  temporelle  du  pape  (Paris,  1849). 

— * — ,  La  souverainete  pontificate  selon  le  droit  catholique  et  le  droit 
Europeen  (Paris,  i860). 

Eckle,  Ch.,  La  politique  napoleonienne  et  la  papaute,  1848-1864  (Paris, 
1904. 

Ellesmere,  Earl  of,  Military  events  in  Italy,  1848-1849  (London,  1851). 

Falloux,  A.  de,  Discours  et  melanges  politiques  (Paris,  1882),  2  vols. 

- ,  Le  parti  catholique,  ce  qu’il  a  ete,  ce  qu’il  est  devenu  (Paris,  1856) . 

- ,  Antecedents  et  consequences  de  la  situation  actuelle  (Paris,  i860). 

Farini,  L.  C.,  Lo  stato  Romano  dalVanno  1815  all’anno  1850  (Torino, 
1850-1853),  4  vols.  English  translation  by  Gladstone  ('London,  1851- 
1854),  4  vols. 


354  BIBLIOGRAPHY  [354 

Ferrere,  A.,  Circulaire  en  faveur  de  la  candidature  du  prince  Louis 
Napoleon  Bonaparte  (Paris,  1848).  B.N.Lb54.i57i. 

Fisher,  H.  A.  L.,  Bonapartism  (Oxford,  1914). 

Gaillard,  L.  de,  L’Expedition  de  Rome  en  1849,  avec  pieces  fustihcatives 
et  documents  inedits  (Paris,  1861). 

Gennarelli,  A.,  II  governo  pontidco  e  lo  stato  Romano  (Prato,  i860),  2 
fols. 

Harcourt,  Comte  B.  de,  Les  quatre  ministeres  de  M.  Drouyn  de  Lhuys 
(Paris,  1882). 

Johnston,  R.  M.,  The  Roman  Theocracy  and  the  Republic,  1846-1849 
(London,  1901). 

King,  Bolton,  A  history  of  Italian  unity.  Being  a  political  history  of 
Italy  from  1814-18/1,  2nd  ed.  (London,  1912),  2  vols. 

Latour-Lesside,  F.  A.  C.  de,  Quelques  reflexions  sur  le  demele  survenu 
entre  le  coeur  de  Rome  et  le  gouvernement  frangaise  a  Voccasion  de 
la  lettre  de  Louis  Napoleon  (Toulouse,  1849).  B.N.Lb55.i2i2. 

Lebey,  Andre,  Louis  Napoleon  Bonaparte  et  la  revolution  de  1848  avec 
des  documents  et  des  portraits  inedits  (Paris,  1907-1908),  2  vols. 

— — ,  Louis  Napoleon  Bonaparte  et  le  minister e  Odilon  Barrot,  1849 
(Paris,  1912). 

- ,  Les  trois  coups  d’etats  de  Louis  Napoleon  Bonaparte  (Paris,  1906). 

Mamiani,  Count  T.,  Rights  of  nations,  or  the  new  law  of  European 
states  applied  to  the  affairs  of  Italy.  Translated  from  the  Italian 
by  Roger  Acton  (London,  i860). 

Mariotti,  L.,  Italy  in  1848  (London,  1851). 

Mazzini,  G.,  To  Loins  Napoleon  (London,  1858). 

- ,  Life  and  writings  (London,  1864-1870),  6  vols.  Especially  vol.  5. 

- ,  A  MM.  de  Tocqueville  et  de  Falloux,  Lettre  de  Mazzini  sur  les 

evenements  de  Rome  (Paris,  1849).  B.N.Lb55.ii6i. 

Morin,  M.,  Catechisme  napoleonien,  contenant  les  principes  professes  en 
politique  et  en  religion  par  L.  N.  Bonaparte,  president  de  la  repub- 
lique  (Paris,  1849).  B.N.Lb554. 

Napoleon  III,  Extinction  du  pauperisme  (Fort  de  Ham,  1844).  English 
translation  (London,  1849). 

Napoleon,  L.,  Oeuvres  de  Napoleon  in  (Paris,  1854-1856),  4  vols. 

— — ,  The  political  and  historical  works  of  Louis  Napoleon  Bonaparte, 
president  of  the  French  Republic;  with  an  original  memoir  of  his 
life  brought  down  to  the  promulgation  of  the  constitution  of  1852, 
and  occasional  notes  (London,  1852),  2  vols. 

Nicolini,  G.  B.,  The  history  of  the  pontificate  of  Pius  the  ninth ;  in¬ 
cluding  a  narrative  of  the  political  movements  in  Italy  during  the 
last  five  years  (Edinburgh,  1851). 

Pius  IX,  Allocution  of  our  most  holy  father  Pope  Pius  IX  pronounced 
in  the  sacred  consistory  at  Gaeta  on  April  20 ,  1849  (London,  1849). 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


355] 


355 


Trevelyan,  G.  M.,  Garibaldi's  defence  of  the  Roman  republic,  1848-1849 
(-London,  1914). 

Veuillot,  L.,  Lettre  sur  les  evenements  du  2  decembre  (Paris,  1851). 

B.N.Lb55.2298. 

Chapter  VII 

Appel  d  S.S.  le  pape  Pie  ix  au  sujet  du  pro  jet  de  loi  sur  la  liberte  de 
V enseignement  presente  le  18  juin,  1849,  a  I’assemblee  legislative  par 
M.  de  Falloux  (Nantes,  1849).  B.N.Ld4-5203. 

Barthou,  L.,  Thiers  et  la  loi  Falloux  (Paris,  1903). 

Bautain,  Abbe,  L’Education  publique  au  xixe  siecle  (Paris,  1876). 
Cahour,  Abbe  A.,  Attentat  d  la  liberte  des  families ,  des  communes  et 
des  cultes,  ou  le  projet  de  loi  de  M.  Carnot  sur  l’ instruction  pri- 
aire  (Nantes,  1848).  'B.N.Ld4.5i87. 

Colombel,  H.,  Reflexions  sur  la  liberte  de  V enseignement  (Nantes,  1848). 

B.N.Ld4.5i75. 

Dreyfus,  F.,  L’Ecole  en  1848  et  le  ministere  d’Hippolyte  Carnot 
(Paris,  1908). 

Esquisse  d’un  projet  de  loi  sur  la  liberte  dJ enseignement  (Nancy,  1849). 
B.N.Ld4.5i97. 

Gaubier,  M.  G.,  Memoire  aux  eveques  de  France  sur  la  creation  d’un 
universite  catholique  pour  la  liberte  d’ enseignement  (Nimes,  1849). 
B.N.Ld4.52i2. 

Hue,  A.,  La  loi  Falloux:  le  clericalisme  et  I’ecole  (Paris,  1900). 
Jouvenet,  J.,  Un  dernier  mot  d  M.  de  Falloux  sur  les  tribulations  du 
clerge  des  campagnes  (Paris,  1849).  LcL^s^i. 

— * — ,  Quatrieme  lettre  de  M.  J.  Jouvenet  sur  V instruction  et  la  religion, 
d  M.  Parieu,  ministre  de  V instruction  publique  (Paris,  1849).  B.N. 
Ld4.52o8. 

Lacombe,  H.  de,  Les  debats  de  la  commission  de  1849.  Discussion  parle- 
mentaire  et  loi  de  1850,  2nd  ed.  (Paris,  1899). 

Lettre  d’un  bourgeois  de  Paris  au  president  de  la  repubiique  touchant 
le  projet  de  loi  de  M.  de  Falloux  sur  l’ instruction  publique  (Paris, 

1849) .  B.N.-Ld4.520i. 

Memoire  sur  le  projet  de  loi  relatif  a  la  liberte  d” enseignement  (Paris, 

1850) .  B.N.Ld4.5209. 

Memoire  sur  le  projet  de  loi  relatif  a  l’ enseignement  (Paris,  1850). 
Ld4.5207. 

Metz-Noblat,  M.  A.  de,  Les  rapports  de  Veglise  et  de  I’etat  (Paris,  1849). 
B.N.Ld4.52i2. 

Michel,  Henry,  La  loi  Falloux.  4  janvier,  1849-15  mars,  1850  (Paris, 
1906). 

Montals,  Clausel  de,  Lettre  de  M.  I’eveque  de  Chartres  au  sujet  de  la 
loi  sur  V enseignement  (Chartres,  1850).  Ld4.52T4. 


356  BIBLIOGRAPHY  [356 

- ■,  Courtes  observations  sur  le  nouveau  projet  de  loi  concernant  Vin- 

struction  publique  (Chartres,  1849).  BjN.Ld4.5200. 

Mousset,  E.,  Observations  sur  le  projet  de  loi  d’instruction  publique  pre¬ 
sente  a  Vassemblee  nationale  legislative  par  M.  de  Falloux  le  18 
juin,  1849  (Auch,  1850).  B.N.Ld4.52i3. 

Parisis,  Monseigneur,  La  democratic  devant  V enseignement  catholique 
(Paris,  1849).  B.N.Ld4.5i92. 

- ,  La  verite  sur  la  loi  de  l’ enseignement  (Paris,  1850).  B.N.Ld452i5. 

Regnon,  H.  de,  Memoire  adressee  a  M.  de  Falloux,  ministre  de  ! instruc¬ 
tion  publique  et  des  cultes,  au  sujet  de  la  liberte  d’ enseignement 
(Nantes,  1849).  B.N.Ld4.5i89. 

- ,  Adresse  d  Vepiscopat  frangaise  au  sujet  du  pro  jet  de  loi  de  M.  de 

Falloux  sur  l’ enseignement  primaire  et  secondaire  (Nantes,  1849). 
BvN.Ld4.5196. 

- ,  Demande  Fan  concile  nationale  a  Vepiscopat  frangaise  a  Veffet 

d’assurer  la  liberte  de  Veglise  catholique  et  la  liberte  d’ enseignement 
(Nantes,  1848).  B.N.Ld4.5i88. 

Seignobos  et  al.,  La  Lutte  scolaire  en  France  au  dix-neuvieme  siecle 
(Paris,  1912). 

Veuillot,  L.,  Le  Parti  Catholique .  Reponse  d  M.  le  comte  de  Falloux 
(Paris,  1856).  B.N.Lb56.643. 

Weill,  G.,  Histoire  de  V enseignement  secondaire  en  France,  1802-1920 
(Paris,  1921). 


INDEX 


Accursi,  231 

Affre,  cf.  Paris,  Archbishop  of 
Agen,  Bishop  of,  no 
Altieri,  Cardinal,  248 
Antonelli,  Cardinal,  199,  200, 

202-204,  206,  208,  223,  245-246, 

255,  257,  341 

Arago,  Emmanuel,  220,  263,  264 
Arnaud  (de  l’Ariege),  63,  66,  69, 
99,  100,  259,  329,  337 
Aubineau,  Leon,  137 
Aulard,  14 

d’Auvergne,  Latour,  199 
d’Azeglio,  147 

Baboeuf,  312 
Bacon,  Francis,  25 
Bac,  214 

Barrot,  Odilon,  16,  45,  64,  191, 
195,  21 1,  216,  218,  219,  220,  222, 
234,  243,  251,  264,  280 
Barrault,  Emile,  264 
Bastide,  124,  146,  149,  157,  160, 
161 

Bautain,  Abbe,  52,  119,  308 
Bayeux,  Bishop  of,  132,  139 
Beauharnais,  Hortense,  171 
Beauvais,  Bishop  of,  50,  316 
Bedini,  Mgr.,  203 
Bentham,  J.,  87 
Berryer,  125,  141 
Besangon,  Archbishop  of,  316 
Beugnot,  334 

Blanc,  Louis,  76-79,  81,  89,  97,  98, 
123-125,  130,  277 
Blanqui,  271 
Boissier,  63 
Bonald,  34 

Bonald,  Cardinal,  169,  324,  325 
Bonaparte,  Lucien,  185 
Bonnetat,  Abbe,  68 
Bonnetty,  A.  M.,  133 
Bourmont,  Charles  de,  in 
Bossuet,  29 

Bourges,  Archbishop  of,  49 
Buchez,  32-34 ,  87,  89,  124 

357] 


Cabet,  76,  79-81,  89,  130 
Cahour,  Abbe,  277,  278 
Calvi,  231 

Camp,  Maxime  du,  270 
Canino,  Prince  of,  162 
Carnot,  H.,  54,  119,  166,  267-271, 
276-279,  281 
Caron,  Abbe,  120 
Casimir-Perier,  18 
Cass,  240 
Castella,  34 

Cavaignac,  General,  130,  143, 

150,  154,  156-160,  175,  183,  184, 
186,  187,  207,  21 1,  215,  278 
Cavour,  64,  339,  340 
Cazales,  Abbe,  125 
Cenac,  68 

Chalons,  Bishop  of,  49,  321 
Chapelier,  72,  73 
Charles  Albert,  198 
Charles  X,  16,  17,  378 
Chartres,  Bishop  of,  300,  320,  321 
Chateaubriand,  23,  24,  34 
Cherruel,  Abbe,  57 
Cochin,  31 

Condorcet,  37,  41,  302 
Considerant,  V.,  89 
Constant,  B.,  41,  42 
Corcelle,  154,  155,  160,  161,  164, 
166,  248-250,  334 

Cousin,  V.,  270,  281-287,  290,  291, 
298 

Coux,  Charles  de,  27,  34,  43,  44,  85 

Danton,  302 
Darboy,  Mgr.,  144 
Debidour,  122 
Diderot,  36 

Digne,  Bishop  of,  51,  52,  84,  no, 
152 

Dufaure,  143,  184,  276 
Dupanloup,  Abbe,  133,  185,  192- 
194,  207,  281,  284-288,  290,  291, 
298,  328,  332,  342 
Dupont  (de  l’Eure),  54 

357 


INDEX 


358 

Etang,  Abbe,  53,  no,  in 
Espivent,  226,  227 
Esterhazy,  Count  Maurice,  203, 
206 

Evreux,  Bishop  of,  315 

Fabar,  Captain,  229 
Falloux,  31,  50,  104,  116,  127,  181, 
185,  187,  191-195,  211-213,  215, 
251-257,  259,  267,  276,  279,  281, 
292,  297-303,  307,  309,  3i7,  33i 
334 

Faucher,  Leon,  195 
Favre,  Jules,  193,  218,  220,  221, 
232,  233,  337,  338 
Fayet,  cf.  Orleans,  Bishop  of 
Ferrere,  Aristide,  187-189 
Ferretti,  Mastai,  cf.  Pius  IX 
Feugueray,  82,  89 
Flocon,  78,  143 
Foisset,  334 
Forbin-Janson,  228 
Fourier,  130 

Francis  Joseph,  Emperor,  198 
Frayssinous,  40,  41 

Gap,  Bishop  of,  49,  328 
Garibaldi,  343 

Genga,  Cardinal  della,  248,  254 
Gerbet,  Abbe,  27,  34,  324 
Gioberti,  201,  202,  212,  213,  339 
Grevy,  Jules,  218,  234 
Gueronniere,  339-342 
Guibert,  Cardinal,  119,  122,  333 
Guizot,  43,  45,  96 

d’Harcourt,  Duke,  151,  154-156, 
199,  206,  215,  222,  225,  226,  229, 
238,  241,  245,  246 
Hugo,  Victor,  262,  263,  301 

Innocent  XII,  n 
Isambert,  66,  67,  69 

Lacordaire,  Abbe,  27-29,  43,  56, 

’  58-60,  64,  85,  119,  123,  187,  309, 

329,  332 

Laffetay,  Abbe,  132 
Lamartine,  45,  55,  59,  158 
Lamennais,  19,  22,  27,  42,  59,  64 
Lamoriciere,  General,  219 
Langres,  Bishop  of,  44,  49,  66, 
in,  119,  121,  139,  140,  168,  276, 
302,  303,  305,  308,  325,  327,  333, 
334 


[358 

Lasteyrie,  Ferdinand  de,  143 
Lavallee,  65 
Le  Blanc,  Abbe,  168 
Le  Blanc,  Colonel,  222,  227,  228 
Lecanuet,  166 

Ledru-Rollin,  55,  97,  108-113,  143, 
156,  158,  213,  214,  220,  221,  234, 
235,  267 

Lefevre-Pontalis,  334 
Leroux,  Pierre,  65 
Lesseps,  Ferdinand  de,  234-244 
Lhuys,  Drouyn  de,  195,  200,  201, 
205,  222,  237,  245,  246 
Liedekerke,  Count  von,  206 
Louis  XIV,  n,  47 
Louis  XV,  47 
Louis  XVIII,  16,  40 
Louis-Philippe,  18,  34,  46,  47,  51, 
61,  75,  84,  150,  172,  214,  267, 
333 

Ludolf,  Count,  206 
Lyons,  Bishop  of,  cf.  Bonald, 
Cardinal 

Machiavelli,  260 

Maistre,  Count  de,  25,  26,  34 

Malmesbury,  Lord,  171 

Malthus,  87 

Mamiani,  251 

Mans,  Bishop  of,  53,  321 

Marat,  116 

Marie,  143 

Maret,  Abbe,  81,  85,  86,  91,  107, 

329,  334-337,  342 
Marioni,  230,  231 
Marrast,  78 
Martignac,  41 
Martini,  198,  199,  202 
Mazzini,  224,  228,  229,  236,  240, 

241,  338 

Melun  18,  28-30,  50,  57,  70,  76, 
83,  84,  91,  92,  93,  97,  100-105, 
122,  123,  127,  129,  130,  136-140, 
178-183,  187,  190,  291,  329,  330 
Mercier,  205,  206 
Meurthe,  Boulay  de  la,  175 
Minghetti,  148,  149 
Minto,  Lord,  147,  149 
MoleA  141,  189,  253 
Molliere,  General,  242 

Montalembert,  27,  31,  43-  44,  50, 
80,  83,  93,  in,  118,  125,  131- 
134,  136,  141-144,  156,  157,  166, 
175-178,  184,  187,  192,  194,  263, 
273-276,  280,  281,  283,  298,  302- 


INDEX 


359 


359] 

308,  317,  318,  322-324,  327,  328, 

330,  332,  333,  342 
Montigny,  94.  .95 
Montauban,  Bishop  of,  no,  135 
Morel,  Abbe,  327 

Nancy,  Bishop  of,  51,  329 
Napier,  Lord,  232 
Napoleon  I,  13-15,  28,  37,  39,  47, 
60,  74,  75,  I7I-I73,  26 6 
Napoleon,  Louis,  141,  158,  162, 
169,  171-196,  204,  211-213,  215, 
216,  221,  224,  233-235,  238,  252- 
258,  261,  278,  310-326,  328-331, 
338-344 

Ney,  Colonel,  253,  255,  257,  258, 

331,  338 

Niel,  Colonel,  247 
Normanby,  Lord,  158-161,  190, 
200,  233,  235 

Olger,  Bishop  of,  326 
Orleans,  Bishop  of,  67,  69,  119, 
167,  168,  276 
Orsini,  338 
Ott,  92 

Oudinot,  General,  223-230,  232- 
235,  237-241,  243,  247,  250,  253 
Ozanam,  19,  34,  35,  57,  82,  85,  86, 
107,  109,  122,  152,  153,  329 

Palma,  Mgr.,  151 
Palmerston,  Lord,  147,  149,  160, 
197,  230,  231,  235 

Paris,  Archbishop  of,  30,  48,  54, 
1 18,  127,  325,  327,  333,  334 
Parisis,  Mgr.,  cf.  Langres, 
Bishop  of 
Pasolini,  148-150 
Pecquer,  78 
Persigny,  187 
Pescantini,  227 
Pius  VII,  16 

Pius  IX,  45,  46,  49,  56,  61,  69, 
136,  142,  145-155,  157,  158,  160- 
165,  184,  185,  195,  197,  199-208, 
210,  212,  214-217,  220-224,  228, 
229,  244-251,  255,  257,  258,  260- 
264,  300,  309,  316,  325,  330,  335, 

341-343 

Poitiers,  Bishop  of,  325,  342 
Ponsonby,  Lord,  204 
Pradie,  66 

Proudhon,  76,  80,  121,  138,  273, 
288 


Quelen,  Mgr.,  28,  30 
Quimper,  Bishop  of,  117,  119,  32^ 
Quinet,  Edgar,  156,  260,  337 

Raspail,  158,  283,  288 
Ravignan,  Abbe,  125,  192 
Rayneval,  206,  222,  223,  225,  229, 
238,  242,  245,  246 
Regnon,  Marquis  de,  299 
Remusat,  Charles  de,  270 
Renouvier,  Charles,  270 
Renouard,  42 

Rheims,  Archbishop  of,  215,  316 
Riancey,  31,  334 
Robespierre,  116,  302 
Rolland,  36 
Romieu,  317 

Rosa,  Martinez  de  la,  206 
Rosiere,  Thuriot  de,  262 
Rostolan,  General,  253,  255 
Rossi,  134,  136,  150,  151,  162,  240, 
246 

Rousseau,  20-24,  26 
Rusconi,  227,  231 
Ruolz,  Henri  de,  178 

Saint-Hilaire,  Barthelemy,  301 
Saint-Simon,  31,  32,  34,  87,  119, 
267 

Salinis,  Abbe,  84 
Salvandy,  45 
Sand,  George,  55 
Sarrut,  Germain,  220 
Say,  J.  B.,  27,  74,  75 
Schoelcher,  220,  221 
Schwartzenberg,  204 
Senior,  N.  W„  177,  248,  261 
Sens,  Archbishop  of,  49 
Sibour,  Mgr.,  51,  52,  74 
Simon,  Jules,  275,  337 
Smith,  Adam,  27,  41 
Soissons,  Bishop  of,  314 
Spaur,  Count,  199 
Spaur,  Countess,  151 
Stern,  Daniel,  120 
Swetchine,  Madame,  193 

Talleyrand,  312 
Temple,  Sir  William,  197 
Thiers,  A.,  45.  132,  I39-I4L  177, 
189,  194,  216-218,  261,  262,  271, 
272,  281-284,  286-291,  298,  306, 
308,  310 
Thom,  205 

1  Thomas,  Emile,  125 


INDEX 


[360 


360 


Tocqueville,  de,  17,  20,  70,  125, 
173,  189,  190,  191,  248,  250,  251, 
260,  261,  263 

Toulouse,  Archbishop  of,  316 
Troyes,  Bishop  of,  314 

Vacherot,  337 
Vannicelli,  Cardinal,  248 


Veuillot,  Eugene,  329 
Veuillot,  Louis,  44,  45,  80,  82, 
106,  131,  178,  187,  298,  299,  317, 
319,  324,  326,  331,  332 
Victor  Emmanuel,  265 
Villele,  41 
Villemain,  43 
Voltaire,  25,  26,  290,  334 


Date  Due 

"?  2  6  '4. 

U> 

jsy .  b  v 

FE  20-53 

FE  2  h  ’59 

%  ;  « 

’■?  23 1 4 

**c— 

MY  31 ’54 

• 

• 

f) 

/ 


